Murphy Leans on Law to Circumvent Campaign Ethics

Livingston County Sheriff Mike Murphy was uncovered to have not broken the law in the course of President Donald Trump’s visit in the month of August, a disappointing reveal for those hoping otherwise. The Sheriff’s Office was the venue for a press conference presided by Trump on Aug. 20, which Murphy claimed would solely be for sharing information with the public. This statement, as Melissa Heinig pointed out in her complaint, was eventually discovered to be a less-than-accurate description, as video footage from the supposed ‘press conference’ revealed a different story.

Taking steps to ensure the ‘press conference’ went smoothly, Murphy saw to it that roads were closed, courthouses near his office were shut down, and a good number of local school children had their day of education interfered with. Was this all for the sake of information sharing? The residential community might argue otherwise. Video evidence collected from the conference brought to light the fact that Trump was there not simply to inform the public, but to engage in a campaign against Kamala Harris.

This campaigning was carried out in a building funded by the public, amidst a crowd of officials whose salaries were likewise footed by the public. Was this ethical or even legal? Heinig believed it wasn’t and her commitment to the matter led her to share details about the state’s investigation into the Sheriff’s visit with Trump. The core issue driving this matter was the fact that the Michigan Campaign Finance Act forbids the use of public funds or resources in support of political candidates.

The law firm representing Murphy, Cohl, Stoker and Toskey P.C., responded by drawing attention to certain exceptions in the prohibition. They pointed out that the prohibition did not extend to the expression of opinions by elected or nominated public officials like Murphy who are in positions where they have to make policy decisions. It’s noteworthy how they use the law to defend their actions, isn’t it?

It appears that the law firm didn’t stop at that either. They went ahead to emphasize that the prohibition overlooked the production or sharing of factual information related to issues relevant to the function of the public body. Similarly, it did not apply to the use of a public facility by a candidate or committee as long as equal opportunities for usage were provided. They even claimed that Murphy had stated he’d offer Kamala Harris the same opportunity he extended to Trump. A clever tactic indeed, to fall back on the law to evade any form of accountability.

Indeed, Murphy had positioned himself as an ‘elected or appointed public official with policy-making responsibilities,’ under the framework of the Campaign Finance law. The implications of this status are that he was not classified as a public official under the Political Activities of Public Employees Act. Hence, he found himself rooted in a convenient loophole amid this controversy.

It’s important to remember that the Secret Service, along with Livingston County deputies including during former President Joe Biden’s 2021 Howell visit, collaborated on this occasion. The Department of State’s Bureau of Elections, following a thorough evaluation, concluded that while evidence pointed towards a potential infraction, it was eventually decided that no laws were breached. A disappointment, for those seeking justice!

Despite the controversial nature of the event, it was concluded that the location being rented for a private gathering at market price didn’t constitute a violation of the law. While there were deputies present, they were merely acting based on the discretion of the Secret Service and the political candidate. This situation didn’t check the boxes necessary for ‘express advocacy’ under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.

While official court documents could provide further clarity about the specifics of the case, it’s clear that the decisions made, and the loopholes utilized, seem suspicious at best. Echoing the sentiment, the Bureau of Elections determined that Jay Drick, Livingston Co. Board Chair, transgressed the campaign finance law. A complaint was filed by Judy Daubenmier, from the Livingston Democratic Party.

The case against Drick reveals that he utilized a County Commission meeting, which took place on July 22, to lobby for his reelection and undermine his opponent’s qualifications. This is a direct contradiction to the very ethics Drick should have upheld. Quite unsurprisingly, the target of his attacks in the August primary election was Heather Williams.

In the grand scheme of things, it’s disheartening to see law-flouting behavior being shielded by scope limitations of the law or crafty interpretations. Yet, in some minimal form of justice, Drick was forced to reimburse the county a total of $2.56 and also received an official warning for his actions. Small victories might not disembowel the system, but they sure can rattle it.

There is no doubt that those in positions of power can use the law to their advantage in a variety of cases and scenarios, but it’s equally important for the general public to remain informed and critical of these manipulations and their implications. When public resources are used to propel individual political ambitions, it undermines the function of these resources and the vow of impartiality public officials are expected to uphold.

In this case, it seems Murphy and his law firm’s defenses leaned heavily on the privileges of the position he held. The presence of leniencies in the law that permit certain forms of ‘bias’ towards a candidate raises questions about the objectivity of public officials and whether it’s even feasible to impose unbiased norms on those with policy-making responsibilities, particularly when so blatantly exploited.

It’s also worth noting that while Donald Trump was out campaigning against Kamala Harris, no such similar opportunities appeared to happen for Harris herself. Yet Murphy’s defense relied upon the notion that he’d offer the same chances to Harris as he did Trump. The instances of these supposed fair chances still remain mysteriously unseen or perhaps, unoffered.

In the end, this case serves as a stark reminder of the relationship that can exist between public officials and political candidates, and the potential misuse of public resources that often gets swept under the rug. Society must remain vigilant and hold such incidents up to scrutiny, for persistent scrutiny is the most effective disinfectant to unethical activities veiled under the cloak of public service and law.