consultants are sandburs

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Andy Parrish, write me a check.

An earlier Crabgrass post cited Michael Brodkorb's reporting of allegations of financial irregularity within the Ortman for US Senate campaign effort; with attention focusing on Andy Parrish as a focal person of interest. Brodkorb has an update online at the Strib website.

What do you make of the below election law language, per the allegations involved in Brodkorb's reporting?


Subdivision 1. Bribery, advancing money, and treating prohibited.
A person who willfully, directly or indirectly, advances, pays, gives, promises, or lends any money, food, liquor, clothing, entertainment, or other thing of monetary value, or who offers, promises, or endeavors to obtain any money, position, appointment, employment, or other valuable consideration, to or for a person, in order to induce a voter to refrain from voting, or to vote in a particular way, at an election, is guilty of a felony. This section does not prevent a candidate from stating publicly preference for or support of another candidate to be voted for at the same primary or election. Refreshments of food or nonalcoholic beverages having a value up to $5 consumed on the premises at a private gathering or public meeting are not prohibited under this section.

[bolding in original; italics added] It appears there's an exception you can drive a tractor-trailer through, in terms of what community norms are, or should be, vs an express exception, which arguably was too broadly worded.

NOTE: Readers knowing of any other arguably relevant statute or judicial opinion are urged to leave such information in a comment.

No comments: