By John Flesher
First Published by the Detroit Free Press


If you believe that people who break the law in a political context get special, lenient treatment, keep your eye on the case of Meijer Inc. and Acme Township to find out if that's going to happen in Michigan.

In an April 11 ruling, Circuit Court Judge Philip Rodgers in Traverse City said that retailer Meijer does not have to respond to subpoenas issued by Grand Traverse Prosecutor Alan Schneider. Schneider was seeking communications regarding Meijer's corporate-funded efforts to recall elected officials in Acme Township over a zoning issue for a store. Judge Rodgers said that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act gives exclusive jurisdiction of campaign finance violations to the Michigan Department of State, which administers elections.

In the opinion, Rodgers noted that, "While all other citizens are subject to the full brunt of the justice system for their alleged crimes, the Legislature has created a 'political class' of those who are elected or would be elected to office and exempted their alleged campaign crimes from scrutiny by experienced county prosecutors."

In this case, the member of the "political class" getting the exemption was the secret source of money behind an election campaign.

After legal and business records surfaced last December that documented Meijer's attempted coup d'etat in Acme Township, the corporation hired attorney John Pirich to conduct an internal investigation of the matter. Pirich noted that mistakes had been made and Meijer should not have paid for the effort with corporate funds, but rather through its political action committee.

That is an understatement. Knowingly using corporate money in a recall campaign is a felony. Meijer secretly funded the vast majority of the recall drive over a period of more than nine months. Records, for example, show spending of $30,000 on a public relations firm.

Meijer's director of real estate paid the bills. Its vice president for communications was consulted on strategy. Dickinson Wright, a very sophisticated law firm, acted as a billing go-between for Meijer and the communications firm it hired to do the hands-on campaign work. The company, Seyferth Spaulding, is experienced in political campaigns, and should have known that it was neck-deep in an illegal scheme.

Meijer would like the Department of State to accept the company's internal investigation of events and negotiate a conciliation agreement, probably involving a fine. That would be an outrage.

Meijer spent years and tens of thousands of dollars bullying local officials, suing them and generally making their lives hell because they dared to exercise local control in a zoning decision. In this case, justice demands more than a wrist-slap and a token fine.

The Department of State has no subpoena power, so it has no meaningful ability to conduct an investigation. State should refer this case to the attorney general, as was done with campaign law cases involving Geoffrey Fieger and state Rep. George Cushingberry, to name two.

Then, Attorney General Mike Cox should refer this case right back where it belongs: to the Grand Traverse County prosecutor. Schneider has been working on this case for months, and the apparent crimes targeted public officials in his jurisdiction.

As this case unfolds, we will get a clear indication of what principles are important in Michigan. Are we a state of equal justice for all, or do wealth, power and connections get special treatment?

Rich Robinson is executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, a nonpartisan nonprofit watchdog organization based in Lansing.

© 2008 Detroit Free Press

Go to Home Page

Each week we review dozens of articles and essays from both corporate and independent media sources and choose one that we believe brings you unique or important information or perspectives on issues of democracy and corporate power. Opinions presented do not necessarily reflect those of ReclaimDemocracy.org.Index of past features
Fair Use Notice
This site occasionally reprints copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is available without profit. For more information go to : http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Search this site
Powered by Google