LIVINGSTON — In response to a complaint filed against County Board Chair Jay Drick by Livingston Democratic Party Judy Daubenmier, the Michigan Bureau of Elections has concluded Drick violated campaign finance law.
Drick has reimbursed the county $2.56 and received a formal warning for his actions.
How did Drick violate campaign finance law?
During a board meeting on July 22, 2024, Drick responded to criticism during public comment from former commissioner Steve Williams.
At the time, Drick was running for re-election against challenger Heather Williams, who is married to Steve.
“I’ve sat here quietly week after week, listening to a litany of allegations, bogus issues about three commissioners running for re-election. I’ve looked the three challengers and their husband and their father and their friends in the eye from this seat as they’ve attempted time and time to discredit our good works and I’ve never responded until now,” Drick said, proceeding to argue some of the points made against him.
After a second round of public comment, Drick “exercised (his) option to be the last to speak.” From the dais, he criticized Williams for how long she’s lived in the county and for a lack of experience in public office. He also alleged she’d filed for bankruptcy and had $358,000 in unsecured debt she hadn’t repaid.
Williams told The Daily the bankruptcy filing and debt were her ex-husband’s.
Drick went on to list his qualifications and experience in the community and on the board.
Daubenmier filed her complaint soon after, arguing Drick’s criticism of his opponent and promotion of his own campaign violated campaign during an official meeting, in an official capacity, violated campaign finance law.
Daubenmier cited Michigan Campaign Finance Act Sec. 57 “… which prohibits public officials from campaigning while on the job and being paid.”
Drick’s attorney, Mattis Nordfjord, said the complaint failed to show his comments were outside the “scope of exemption.” He also argued Drick had a right, under the First Amendment, to express his views on policy issues.
The investigation
On Dec. 18, 2024, an attorney with the Michigan Department of State sent a letter to Nordfjord. In the letter, the state found, after reviewing the video, Drick’s first statement where he defended the actions of the board weren’t a violation — but his critiques of Williams and the promotion of his own campaign were.
“(The second comment was) directed at his opponent and criticizing their qualifications for public office,” the letter read.
The letter cited an opinion from former attorney general Frank Kelley, which said a commission or board can “expend appropriated funds to inform the public in an objective manner on issues relevant to the function of the commission or board,” but not to encourage support or opposition for a specific candidate or ballot proposal.
What are the consequences?
On Thursday, May 8, the state sent a letter to a different attorney for Drick, Rich McNulty. The letter acknowledged that Drick reimbursed the county for the two-minute comment, for a total of $2.56.
“Given this, the department concludes that a formal warning is a sufficient resolution to the complaint,” the letter read.
The price tag left Daubenmier frustrated, she said.
“The paltry reimbursement to the county, calculated by someone who reports to Jay Drick in the county chain of command, will not deter any elected official from blatantly campaigning during county meetings,” she wrote in an emailed statement to the Daily.
“But the stigma remains that the state did find there is reason to believe that Jay Drick, a lawyer who should know better, violated the law — and that will always be on his record.”
— Contact reporter Tess Ware at [email protected].
发表回复