Sat 9 Jul 2005
This is a follow up to yesterday’s post.
I was sure that the big story yesterday morning was going to be the long awaited debate at Chatfield College between Paul Hackett and Jean Schmidt. However, that story was quickly bumped on much of the local media when the Columbus Dispatch reported that Ms. Schmidt was one of several legislators under investigation for ethics violations in relation to a night of dinner and football paid for by Chiron Corporation, a biotech company based in Emeryville, California.
…five state lawmakers and their guests dined at an Italian restaurant and got luxury box seats to the Cincinnati Bengals’ first Monday night football game in 15 years. The tickets to the Oct. 25 game cost $300 apiece, and the total tab for the evening topped $5,000. (link)
The article reported that “Schmidt’s campaign faxed information on her reimbursement but did not offer further comment.” I was curious if now that the story had broken, would Jean Schmidt’s campaign manager Joe Braun care to comment. He did:
Rick Colby incorrectly advised Jean and a number of other local state representatives that tickets he provided to a football game were from Boomer Esiason personally, and, therefore, “not reportable.” Jean Schmidt was leaving office one month from the date of the event and there was no legislation pending so there can be no argument made anyone would benefit from her presence at the event. The lobbyist involved advised her, along with Reps. Schneider and Raussen, a few weeks ago that the tickets were not from Esiason personally and the lobbyist took full responsibility for the mistake. Jean then repaid the money as she was required to do and the Inspector General has advised us he has no intention of taking any further action regarding Jean in light of the repayment. It is also worth noting that this reporting correction being made is within the one year time period permitted for such adjustments to be made.
There was one part of Mr. Braun’s statement that stood out to me: “the Inspector General has advised us he has no intention of taking any further action regarding Jean in light of the repayment.” Well… that would certainly seem to be that.
But, when Jon Craig over @ The Enquirer reported on the story the next day, he revealed the real reason why Inspector Bledsoe was taking no further action against Ms. Schmidt: HE CAN’T.
Legislative Inspector General Tony W. Bledsoe said he can’t legally investigate Schmidt because she has left state office.
Well, well, well… talk about silver linings. Suddenly with people facing up to six months of jail time, getting voted out of office doesn’t sound so bad.
But hold on there a minute, Ms. Schmidt isn’t out of the woods yet:
Bledsoe said he expects the bipartisan Joint Legislative Ethics Committee to decide whether the lawmakers intentionally failed to report the event. The committee could issue censures, impose fines or forward the case to the Franklin County prosecutor. (link)
Hello! What happens if the Ethics Committee forwards Jim Raussen, Diana Fessler, and Michelle Schneider’s names to the prosecutor’s office? Just because Tony Bledsoe can’t investigate Jean Schmidt doesn’t mean that if a prosecution starts they wouldn’t include her name along with everyone else’s.
Now, that is all well and good, but let’s look at this thing realistically. We are living in Ohio, after all. Just because you violate the law doesn’t mean that a public official is going to do anything about it.
Instead, let’s look at this from a different angle. Not one of laws and crimes, but one of character.
Is Jean Schmidt’s explanation believable?
When you read statements from Jean Schmidt’s campaign they fall under two categories: one, that they were a gift. From her campaign manager Joe Braun:
Rick Colby incorrectly advised Jean and a number of other local state representatives that tickets he provided to a football game were from Boomer Esiason personally, and, therefore, “not reportable.”
or two, that she didn’t know that the value of the tickets was over $75 dollars. From today’s Enquirer:
According to Schmidt’s campaign aides, the congressional candidate from Loveland didn’t know the luxury seats that she and her daughter sat in during the win over the Denver Broncos were worth more than $75, the limit at which she must report them on financial-disclosure statements. So Schmidt didn’t disclose the fact on her final statement filed in April.
I’m going to go through each one of these explanations in detail, but lets start by talking about both of them together.
Now, as anyone who has watched the O.J. Simpson trial will know, a popular tactic for defense lawyers is to just throw up explanation after explanation… obstacle after obstacle as a defense against a crime. It doesn’t matter if they are consistant. It doesn’t matter if they are reasonable. All that matters is getting their client off the hook. But what works for Johnny Cochran doesn’t cut it when running for Congress.
The advantage of telling the truth is that you don’t have to get your story straight. Why should anyone believe Jean Schmidt’s explanations if they keep changing? Which is it? If it’s both, why didn’t you say both when you were asked? Why should we believe you now?
It all boils down to a question of trust. If voters can’t trust you to tell the truth, or know the difference between right and wrong, why should they trust you to be their representative?
This isn’t a question of the law. Politicians in America are held to a higher standard. Each voter steps into the booth and asks themselves the question, who do I trust more? When you walk in to cast your ballot it’s not a question that needs a reasonable doubt, or involves a jury of your peers.
Now let’s get down to the specifics.
A gift from Boomer Esiason personally
I know that when my kids start doing me favors and offering to take out the trash that they want something. There are very few people that I can expect to take me out to dinner and a Bengals game just because they think that I am a swell guy. My friend Paul… maybe my best friend from High School. Certainly not the head of the Boomer Esiason Foundation.
Now I know that Mr. Esiason is a great guy and I think that his cause is truly a good one, and I hope that he can take every member of the Ohio legislature out to a game and that they vote for the bills that will fight Cystic fibrosis and I really hope that afterwards they follow the law and report it. But that doesn’t change the fact that if Boomer Esiason hands you a free signed football, he’s doing it because he wants something from you. So unless Jean Schmidt, Jim Raussen, Diana Fessler, and Michelle Schneider are all old college drinking buddies of Boomer’s, they’d better come up with a better explanation.
Didn’t know that they were worth more than $75
Lets’ think this one out, folks. Diner for two… OK, I could see that being under $75 bucks. An autographed football from former quarterback Boomer Esiason. Maybe I could see the ball going for under $65 bucks. Then if they only had a couple of value meals and didn’t super size them that might be able to squeek in at under $75. (Now to be fair, I do not know if Ms. Schmidt received a signed footbal like Sen. Hottinger, although considering how much grief this night on the town is causing her would certainly hope so).
But it’s the final bit that throws off the curve: two luxury… that’s LUXURY box seats for the first Monday night football game that the Bengals have played in 15 years. Honestly. Does Ms. Schmidt honestly believe that luxury NFL box seats go for less than a movie ticket at the Danbarry Dollar Saver? Now, all Bengals jokes aside, you’ve got to admit that those are some primo seats.
Ms. Schmidt’s explanation(s) just doesn’t hold water.
Before we wrap this all up, there is one little part of Joe Braun’s explanation into Schmidt’s conduct that we haven’t looked into: “Jean Schmidt was leaving office one month from the date of the event and there was no legislation pending so there can be no argument made anyone would benefit from her presence at the event.“
Lets dive into that one. Why was Boomer Esiason there handing out signed footballs?
Before the game, Esiason met at the Cincinnatian Hotel with the lawmakers and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center representatives. They talked about the importance of the state Bureau for Children with Medical Handicaps and the need to pass Senate Bill 250.
Senate Bill 250 created the task force, one of whose jobs was to protect state funding for cystic fibrosis treatment and studies. The bill also designated May as Ohio Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month.
The task force, among other things, will make recommendations on the care and treatment of individuals with cystic fibrosis.
It passed the House Nov. 30 with the Senate concurring Dec. 8, 2004. A sixth state lawmaker, Sen. Patricia Clancy, R-Colerain Township, attended the dinner but not the football game, so was not required to file a report. (link)
Why Senate Bill 250 would be the very same bill that lists….
wait for it folks…
let’s savor this for a moment…
there it is…
Jean Schmidt as a co-sponsor.
Well, that about wraps up that one. I hope you’ve enjoyed our little excursion today. Be sure to let me know if I’ve missed anything. 
Nice. I talked to a lady today who told me that WLW radio tore into Taft and Flecher this morning. They also took a chunk out of Schmidt according to the listner. I am going to obtain a transcript of the show.
Good post. I think it’s fair to criticize Schmidt for naivete. It is unfortunately not unusual for individuals to give gifts to politicians that are supposedly not related to anything else, but are.
An example: The president of a company I am aware of who will remain nameless worked on getting Ohio Industrial Bonds for his business acquisition in the late 1980s. In the course of all of that it was made clear to him that he had to make a personal (not corporate, personal, and more than $1,000, believe me) campaign contribution (in money, not in entertainment) to Dick Celeste’s campaign war chest or the deal wouldn’t get done. He held his nose and made the contribution, and the deal got done. Did Dick Celeste ever know that this demand was made? Can’t prove it; never will.
Now, someone probably told Boomer that it would be a good idea to personally treat these pols in return for a vote on the legislation in question. He may have agreed to do it at the time, and later decided HE should be reimbursed by his foundation or whatever (let me just say that from where I sit such an about-face would be the kind of thing Boomer would do).
The point is that if it were positioned as a personal gift from Esiason, and she was misled into believing he had paid for it, she perhaps should have demanded proof (that could be fudged too), but she went on faith that Boomer had paid.
Boomer has millions, so it’s not inconceivable that he’d cough up 5 grand personally for something that benefits a cause he believes in (maintaining state funding for BCMH):
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=3206
Also, remember that Esiason lives in Kentucky (unless he’s moved in the past 3 years), and if the contributions had been purely personal, you can’t conceivably argue that he would benefit from it personally, making it a “pure” gift.
I think Schmidt’s reimbursement unfortunately buries the matter, as the late-arriving trip reports and reimbursement trickling in from members of both parties in Washington bury the problems of the people involved (again unfortunate). I’d like people to be more accountable for this kind of crap, but given limited resources and attention spans I’m more worried about somebody’s feet getting held to the fire for the BWC mess at the state level than I am $1,000 nights out to protect the budget of an agency whose appropriations have been decreased for several years.
On a 1-10 Richter scale of political scandals, I’d say not reporting a $1,000 situation and subsequently reimbursing it rates about a 5.
BTW, Does it change anything if Schmidt and her daughter just nibbled on the food?
BizzyBlog
I also get the impression that the “aides” (note that they are unnamed) are speaking out of turn, have no idea of what they are talking about (as in they are really stupid), and are going to get taken to the woodshed or worse over the comment that she didn’t know they were getting a benefit worth more than $75. I think the cheapest Bengals ticket may be $98, according to this link:
http://cincinnatibengals.com/tickets/SingleTicket.aspx
Or it could be worse for Schmidt: The aides are turning on her and making her look dumb. (just want to give you something to fantasize about–I seriously doubt this is the case)
> Good Post.
High praise indeed coming from the master BizzyBlog.
I do think that I should point out that the incident we are talking about today has the possibility of being an actual crime with actual jail time, unlike Bouncing Bob’s problems all those years ago that a certain blogger devoted much time and energy bringing to people’s attention
It also shows a larger problem. Why did the Dispatch have to bring this to light? Why don’t the people speaking for her know the truth? Does she grasp the seriousness of the situation when there is so much chaos surrounding her teams reaction to it? If it’s not a big deal, why twist and spin and hide from it instead of just telling the truth? Why act like you are guilty?
Bledsoe said he expects the bipartisan Joint Legislative Ethics Committee to decide whether the lawmakers intentionally failed to report the event.
Given the vagueness and misrespresentation about the source of the money, it’s difficult (really impossible) to see how an intent to not report existed. So I think the crime angle is a very big stretch.
That said, my famous “I was wrong, I am sorry” (especially the last three words) would go a long way right about now. People are very forgiving in this world (maybe more than they should be), which is why “I was wrong, I am sorry” is not only the right thing to say, but it makes political sense.
I don’t disagree that the Schmidt team needs to get its collective act more together.
It is unfortunate, but a fave tactic of politicians, to not totally deal with the situation, let a week or two go by, and then give a “that’s old news and we already addressed that” response. Unfortunately, it usually works. It’s a favorite tactic of the the previous president and his lovely wife, but it is by no means isolated to them. It’s exactly what McCain will say about the Keating Five mess if he runs for prez, what Biden will say about his speech plagiarism in 1984, etc., ad nauseam, I want to throw up.
Again I think this is a 5 on the 1-10 scandal scale and I’ve made my suggestions, which if form holds, the Schmidt campaign will ignore.
Agreed.
Now we have to see if it has legs. According to Mrs. Editor, amongst her coworkers from Loveland it was all the talk around the water cooler Thursday without her even knowing about the story yet.
Tomorrow’s WhistleBlower takes Hackett to task for not hammering on it more. I’m not sure what he’d need to do to bring it more to light. I do think that he needs to ramp things up on the hellfire meter. Keep the tone from the Debate which was a real winner from my perspective.
I think Hackett is taking the advice that says “stay out of the way when your opponent is hurting himself/herself.”
It’s hard for him not to look petty criticizing a $1,000 reimbursed matter that at worst ties back to keeping funding for health programs Hackett would almost definitely support. I suspect as a lawyer he knows that there is no criminality. So I think the WhistleBlower, in addition to needing to clean up his act so I someday link to him (fat chance, based on current trends), is wrong on this one.
By the way, the “good post” could be a “real good post” if you had some kind of timeline. In other words, I’m not crystal clear on it. I think it’s something like October 15 or so game, November something the task force law gets passed, December or January something Schmidt leaves, April something Schmidt reimburses, July something the Dispatch reveals. I’m sure there are other relevant dates (a lot of this is guessing–that’s why you get the big bucks, to lay it out and disclose it to your dear readers very plainly :->).
So I understand from your post so far that Schmidt reimbursed before the Dispatch did their story, which puts her in a relatively good light compared to if she had to write a check on Friday after the article came out. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I think antoher good question is “Exactly what triggered the reimbusement?” Was it the lobbyist telling her he was wrong about where the money came from BEFORE any ethics or law enforcement people got involved, or before Schmidt knew they were involved? Or was it AFTER the ethics people started sniffing? If the former, she comes out looking pretty good, correcting an honest mistake. If the latter, not necessarily damning, but not as good.
Rereading, I would have to say that if the Franklin County prosecutor somehow thinks these matters are worth pursuing, he should be thrown out on his ear. Given the surely large volume of murder, drug, and violent crime cases on the docket, it would be a waste of prosecutorial resources to pursue this, just as Elliot Spitzer’s pursuit of a retrial of the guy who beat him in court is a complete waste (free and shameless BizzyBlog plug):
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=269
I would hope that Ms. Schmidt would take a simple plea if it came to that. I doubt seriously that she’d want it to come all the way to a trial
To be honest this is a job for the voters. Is she honest? Do you trust her? Has she shown a pattern of unethical behavior?
I can see a lot of room for research into this whole line beyond a timeline:
Are there any other incidents? Maybe examine her gift reporting and look for any other examples of pay for play going on. Find out if Ms. Schmidt’s price for getting bills passed goes up from dinner and football if she’s elected to the US Congress.
BTW, here’s the dates on when they paid things back:
There you go; I think I just saw you volunteer for the assignment. Just like me with McEwen 3 weeks before the election, you’ve got 3 weeks to dig up what you can, make it understandable to the average schlub, and bug the crap out of anyone who will listen. Go for it.
:->
uhh… thanks…
[...] UPDATE: The Enquirer politics “blog” has posted Jean’s press release and protest letter to Vic Wulsin. There is nothing better than Jean “Coward’s Cut And Run” “Fake Degree” “Free Bengals Ticket’s” “False Endorsements” Schmidt lecturing anyone else on ethics. I think I see a VH1 reality show in her future after this whole Congressional thing plays out. I call dibs on Executive Producer! [...]