Why it's a big deal that the White House Counsel knew about the IRS audit findings

2013's best new carnival ride, the Obama White House Scandalpalooza, continues to spit out new shocking headlines on a daily basis, and I wanted to put a spotlight on one detail regarding the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS. 

The administration admitted yesterday that the Office of the White House Counsel was informed about the findings of the IRS audit weeks ago - including specifically informing Kathryn Ruemmler, the Senior White House Counsel and the head of the office. 

President Obama somehow knew nothing about the whole mess until he saw it in the press with the rest of us little people. 

Why is this a big deal? 

Because attorneys have a ethical duty to keep their clients informed. 

Karen Castor Dentel's inadequate response to ethics complaint filed against her

Karen Castor Dentel: Excuses, excuses, excuses.

Yesterday, I wrote a post detailing complaints filed against state representative candidate Karen Castor Dentel with the Florida Elections Commission and the Florida Commission on Ethics.

WFTV 9 covered the story last night, and Dentel's only responses to the very serious complaints filed against her were to insist she had done nothing wrong, and to whine that it was a "politically motivated" attack.

Karen Castor Dentel: Teacher Gets Schooled on Ethics

Karen Castor Dentel

Karen Castor Dentel, currently employed by Orange County Public Schools as a teacher at Dommerich Elementary School, is challenging State Representative Scott Plakon for the District 30 seat in one of the most closely watched campaigns in Florida this year.

Dentel comes from a family of prominent Democrats (mother Betty is a former state senator and education commissioner, and her sister Kathy is a Congresswoman), so I assumed she would have the best advisers helping her campaign, especially considering how highly the Florida Democratic Party was prioritizing this race.

However, recent developments reveal a stunning pattern of ethical violations by Dentel, including complaints filed with the Florida Elections Commission and the Florida Commission on Ethics. I've embedded both complaints below, or you can click on the links in the previous sentence to view them.

There's a reason they call it the "Slantinel"

State Representative Chris Dorworth

Last fall, I wrote a post that started with this question:

How can you tell if Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell will be attacking State Representative Chris Dorworth? If it's a day ending in a "Y."

My friend Tom Tillison had an excellent post at Florida Political Press yesterday regarding Maxwell's latest tirade against  Chris Dorworth, and pointing out that Maxwell's presumptuous "advice" to Republicans should be taken with a grain of salt:

What's behind the shady false attacks on Cliff Stearns?

Cliff Stearns never struck me as controversial. Quiet and unassuming, he's managed to forge a solidly conservative path during his time in Congress, but largely avoided the spotlight until this past year, when he earned accolades for his work leading the Solyndra investigation. So I was, quite frankly, shocked that this election year brought not only a slew of primary challengers against Stearns, but also at the level of vitriol of their attacks on him.

Almost lobbying but not quite?

Newt Gingrich has tossed out a lot of carefully chosen words lately regarding his work with Freddie Mac. First he was a historian, then a consultant, and now he's engaged in a kerfuffle with Mitt Romney about whether or not he was a lobbyist for them.

Peter Schorsch needs a dictionary

Bloggers are still picking dumb fights in order
to get people to come to their sites? Lame.

Yawn. I'd really thought that blogger wars were, like, sooo 2008, but apparently Peter Schorsch is determined to hang on to this trend:

As Herman Cain campaign implodes, thoughts on Deborah Cox-Roush, Sarah Rumpf and others who have backed him

The post isn't really about Cain so much as it is Schorsch's chance to attack me six ways to Sunday. He spends about two-thirds of the post blathering on about me. Seriously? What in the world did I do that was interesting enough to warrant a top headline post?

I mean, seriously? In a week in which Barney Frank announces he's not running for reelection, Herman Cain's campaign makes national news for all the wrong reasons, the euro is nearing meltdown, and redistricting squabbles are causing waves across the state, attacking another local blogger is how Schorsch wants to spend his time? Seriously?!

First of all, Schorsch committed a serious breach of ethics by disclosing several of my comments that we agreed were "off the record." We had a phone conversation a few days ago and then some back-and-forth direct messages on Twitter yesterday. I've saved the screencaps and not only did Schorsch affirm that my previous comments were off the record, those direct messages were as well. 

More on Beth Dillaha's ethical problems

The Winter Park/Maitland Observer published their own article yesterday about former Winter Park City Commissioner Beth Dillaha's latest ethical problems:

Winter Park/Maitland Observer | Dillaha's mailer violated election law, state attorney says

The anti-Sarah Sprinkel mailer that went out before the March 8 election was commissioned by then-outgoing Winter Park City Commissioner Beth Dillaha, and it violated a state election law, according to the state attorney's office...

Community activist William Graves was listed as the financier of the mailer, but later said he was not behind it after a developer and former City Commission candidate threatened to sue him over its content. In an interview with the Observer in March, Graves declined to reveal the author of the mailer or where the money came from.

That secrecy frustrated [City Commissioner Steven] Leary, who spoke out against anonymous mailers at Monday's meeting. 

"Transparency and anonymity are contradictory," Leary said...

And in case you missed it, my blog post from yesterday:

Sunshine State Sarah | How to Speak Winter Parker: "Dillaha" Means "Hypocrite."

Next week, the Winter Park City Commission will be voting on a resolution to send to the Florida Elections Commission, condemning these anonymous mailers. As I noted yesterday, Pete Weldon's complaint is being sent to the FEC for further investigation.

Also, the letter from the State Attorney's investigator and the Observer article linked above both mention that the mailers "appear" to have complied with the statutorily required disclaimer. However, by my reading of the Florida Statutes, this is not the case.

I'm going to try and avoid getting into an overly complicated legal analysis, but in general, because the exact identities of the persons, companies, or organizations who paid for the mailer have not yet been disclosed, I cannot say specifically which statute would govern the mailer. Independent expenditures, electioneering communications, and political committees are the possibilities for how the mailer should have been organized, paid for, and reported. The bottom line is that all of the statutory disclaimer rules require disclosure of who paid for the ad, so providing false or misleading information in the disclaimer complies with neither the letter nor the spirit of Florida's election laws.

So, let's look at the actual language of the Florida Statutes. Here are the relevant subsections setting forth the disclaimer requirements for independent expenditures, electioneering communications, and political committees:

Independent expenditures:

Section 106.071(2). Any political advertisement paid for by an independent expenditure shall prominently state “Paid political advertisement paid for by (Name and address of person paying for advertisement) independently of any (candidate or committee).”

Electioneering communications:

Section 106.1439(1). Any electioneering communication, other than a telephone call, shall prominently state: “Paid electioneering communication paid for by (Name and address of person paying for the communication).”

Political committees:

Section 106.143(1)(c). Any political advertisement made pursuant to s. 106.021(3)(d) must be marked “paid political advertisement” or with the abbreviation “pd. pol. adv.” and must prominently state, “Paid for and sponsored by (name of person paying for political advertisement). Approved by (names of persons, party affiliation, and offices sought in the political advertisement).”

Note the words I've highlighted in bold. Florida law requires disclaimers in political advertisements to disclose the identity of who paid for it. Listing a fake name, or the name of a person who is not the actual one who paid for the advertisement does not comply with the Florida Statutes. 

Because the mailer that Beth Dillaha organized to attack Sarah Sprinkel listed William Graves in its disclaimer but he was not the one who actually paid for it, the mailer is not in compliance with the statutory disclaimer requirements.