Riley’s report shows plethora of corporate money

By Staff
Bob Martin, The Alabama Scene
I don’t know whether it was intentional or not but there appears to be something seriously wrong with the campaign financial reports filed under the Fair Campaign Practices Act by the campaigns of Gov. Bob Riley in 2002 and 2006.
We reported in The Montgomery Independent last week that in those campaigns, Gov. Riley’s campaign apparently failed to properly report the in-kind contributions of several corporate airplanes, along with some advertising and printing donations.
The donations are listed as in-kind contributions from individuals and not from the corporations, which actually own the planes and the other items.
The contributions far exceed the limits of corporate giving to political campaigns, which is $500 in each election cycle. Gov. Riley’s name was on the ballot in two election cycles making the corporate campaign limit for him $1,000 for each corporate contributor. There is no limit on individual donations.
A total of about $40,000 was involved in the six situations we researched. Two of the matters involved are from the 2002 campaign and are outside the statute of limitations in the Fair Campaign Practices Act.
The question which stands out front-and-center is whether or not the listing of individuals instead of the true corporate donors was intentional, as in to bypass the legal limits on corporate donations or was just a mistake in reporting. The governor’s office would not return our telephone calls seeking a clarification and the contributors whose names were listed could not, when contacted, clarify if they had reimbursed their corporations for the expenditures.
This is a serious violation of the law on the part of the governor’s campaign if what we have uncovered cannot be refuted — just as serious as the matters for which former Gov. Don Siegelman was convicted.
There are valid reasons that individual corporations are limited to $500 per election cycle and a failure to abide by the limitations under the election laws is a crime.
The governor must come clean on this and correct his campaign reports. If he doesn’t either the state attorney general or the Montgomery district attorney should take action.
Justice delayed for Siegelman
By year’s end it had been over four months since the 11th Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta told the federal judge in former Gov. Don Siegelman’s case to “promptly” give the appeals court reasons why he denied Siegelman to remain free on appeal of his conviction.
The only reason the judge, Mark Fuller, gave the court was that Siegelman was not likely to be successful in his appeal. On Nov. 7 the appeals judges told Fuller again to “promptly” give them additional reasons why Siegelman should not be released on bond pending appeal.
At year’s end it had been 54 days since the second request from the 11th Circuit was received.
A compelling reason for the release of Siegelman and Richard Scrushy on bail pending their appeals is that after more than a year-and-a-half, the transcript of the trial has not been completed and is not expected to be finished until summer.
The fact that the court reporter who transcribed the trial died is no excuse. It is the responsibility of Fuller, the chief judge in the Middle District of Alabama where the trial took place, to see that transcripts are promptly provided to the appeals court.
It appears clear that this judge has no conception of the word “prompt.”