campaign contributions

Meijer Appeal on Campaign Law Violations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the Traverse City Record-Eagle:

TRAVERSE CITY — Meijer Inc. convinced a state appellate judge to hide from public view documents related to Grand Traverse County’s efforts to investigate the retailer’s campaign finance violations.

Grand Traverse County Prosecutor Alan Schneider is challenging a May 29 order signed by state Court of Appeals Judge Donald Owens that sealed the court file in Schneider’s case against Meijer and the Dickinson Wright PLLC law firm.

Schneider is trying to investigate potential violations of state campaign finance laws concerning Meijer’s illegal involvement in local elections in Acme Township in 2007 and 2005.

Schneider said Friday he filed a challenge this week to the suppression order, but declined additional comment because his appeal remains pending before the appellate court.

A motion to seal the appellate case was filed by John Pirich, a Lansing attorney hired by Meijer. Pirich’s motion remains secret, but Owens’ suppression order makes reference to state law and investigative subpoenas that “requires the maintenance of strict confidentiality of matters related to investigative subpoenas.”

Continue reading →

Goldsmith on the Agua Caliente State Election Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Gary Goldsmith has published “Big Spenders in State Elections–Has Financial Participation by Indian Tribes Defined the Limits of Tribal Sovereign Immunity From Suit” in the William Mitchell Law Review.

From the introduction:

In every election cycle, Indian tribes vigorously attempt to influence such critical matters of state governance as to who will be the state’s governor, who will be elected to the state’s legislative bodies, and what will be the provisions of the state’s constitution. These incursions into the realm of state governance have renewed questions about the sovereignty of Indian tribes in relation to the states’ sovereignty.
In order to understand those conflicting rights, this article will review the historical roots of legal doctrine regarding the position of Indian tribes with respect to the United States government and each state’s government. It will then trace significant doctrinal changes that arose as the result of changing political and cultural attitudes toward Indians. Finally, it will address new theories raised in Agua Caliente v. California FPPC and will comment on the California Supreme Court’s resolution of the constitutional issues and the parties’ eventual Stipulation for Judgment in that matter.