I don’t have much to say about this beyond what is obvious.
It’s certainly no surprise. I (and others, I’m sure) wrote when the Donovan story broke at the end of May that there was almost certainly a second federal investigation underway in the Fifth. It didn’t seem likely that the DOJ would ignore a complaint filed by a former FBI agent.
One (mildly) interesting question is whether or not the investigation contemplates a payola/plugola violation. My guess is it doesn’t because (a) political speech is highly privileged under the First Amendment (so the threshold of proof would be unusually high) and (b) it would muddy up their FEC-based case.
It’s important to bear in mind that this is merely an investigation. The fact that a grand jury exists doesn’t prove anything.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
16 Responses to Taking (on) the Fifth
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
March 12: World Day Against Cyber-Censorship
For a majority of users, the Internet is a space that encourages free expression and the valuable exchange of ideas. Unfortunately, there are numerous cases around the world in which various forces act to silence people’s voices online.
Today is World Day Against Cyber-Censorship, a day to remind ourselves that the Web continues to be a fractured battleground for free speech, and to rally users in fighting repression of online speech. Reporters Without Borders also created this day to celebrate the work of brave individuals who have promoted free expression on the Internet. The annual Netizen Prize is awarded to bloggers, online journalists, and cyber-dissidents, who have demonstrated exceptional dedication to this cause.
EFF remains dedicated to reporting cases of online censorship from all regions of the world, and to emphasize the importance of online anonymity in preserving individuals’ right to free speech. On our ongoing feature, This Week in Censorship, we cover global stories of imprisoned bloggers, filtered content, blocked websites, and instances of Internet disconnection.
A broad array of reasons are offered as justification for censorship. Bloggers in Thailand face imprisonment for criticizing the monarch. In Pakistan, the Telecommunications Authority has blocked websites, banned words from SMS texts, and most recently, has released a request for proposals to build a national blocking and filtering system: All in the name of fighting “obscene content.” The Turkish government has implemented a so-called “democratic” opt-in filtering mechanism for content that is deemed unsuitable for children and families.
Another common trend is censorship enabled in the name of battling copyright violations. Through our Global Chokepoints project, we are monitoring instances of pro-copyright laws that justify filtering of content, websites blockages, or Internet disconnection to fight infringement.
Censorship remains rampant in the Middle Eastern region. In Syria, Iran, and elsewhere, bloggers continue to face imprisonment, and common users have limited access to content online due to state-mandated blocking and filtering programs.
An ongoing issue we are covering is authoritarian states using Western-based surveillance technologies to monitor and spy on their citizens. State authorities can use the collected data to arrest, harass, or torture individuals accused of participating in political dissent.
Visit Reporters Without Borders’ website for World Day Against Cyber-Censorship to learn more about how you can participate.
Every day should be March 12.
Oooooookay. “Maira Sutton,” what’m I missing here. This comment is related to the post ….. how?
This seems an appropriate post in which to carp a little about the apparently unspoken media requirement to express a lack of surprise at any political outcome with an ironic “I’m shocked, shocked…” It seems this homage to the Claude Rains character in “Casablanca” was rediscovered, or reanimated, about a year or so ago in cable-news pundit-land, and has become a kind of shorthand for pop-cultural sophistication or ironic fatigue in general. But it’s time to give the locution a rest.
One of the issues in the federal investigation is whether Rowland’s consulting fees from Foley were an off-the-books payment for political assistance given to Wilson-Foley, either on or off the air.http://www.ctmirror.org/story/16681/radio-silence-rowland-wilson-foley-case
————————-
I’m having more than a bit of difficulty understanding how such a move, ex-Gov getting undisclosed contributions from a campaign, would be a problem. Unlike the contributions our elected DEm pols make to public sector unions and non-profits with taxpayer $, Foley-Wilson contributed her own dough.
I hasten to add that clandestine financial arrangements do not enhance the image of a politician, and in this case I can’t see how Ms. Foley-Wilson can have been helped by having her husband’s company’s lawyer enter into a contract with the ex-Gov with clandestine financial arrangements prominently in view on his resume.
It’s not her dough that’s the issue, its the potential exchange of services for that dough if those services are in fact airtime on WTIC.
Because if that’s the deal, that’s an in-kind contribution to the campaign by WTIC (CBS). Which is against a bunch of laws.
The part about Rowland being paid through her husband’s company so as to keep his name off the disclosure rolls is likely pretty legal, and falls into the category that Colin keeps talking about how sometimes the legal things are scarier than the illegal ones.
in-kind contribution to the campaign by WTIC
———————————————-
I’ll take your word for the illegality. But, aside from the harm that illegal activity per se represents, I don’t see the harm. And, obviously the major “news” outlets are increasingly making in kind contributions to the Dems. Look at the cute move by Mrs. Greenspan vis a vis Romney’s in-touchitude.
My problem with this is no deeper than the current trend to use media and issue non-profits to funnel pay-for-play. The money comes in the form of advertising, donations to a related non-profit, sponsoring related-community events, and other forms of pay-for-play propaganda.
There’s nothing new here. The press and media have always been filthy–see William Loeb and the Muskie campaign in 1972. The press (and media) have always struggled with their Jeckyll and Hyde persona swinging wildly between impartial investgative reporting and editorial polemic tainted by the choice of issues to cover and from what angle.
There’s that fine line of hypocrisy between media slanting of election coverage under the guise of free editorial press and then denying other citizens the same rights including Rowland or other ex-policians.
isn’t this beyond media slant?? If Rowland was working for Wilson-Foley and repeatedly bashed her opponent on the air, but told no one he was working for her, its well beyond “media slant”.
Rowland’s show is his opinion, everyone knows that, but if he’s taking money from a candidate and using his air time to help her get elected, thats not slant or hypocrisy, its just wrong.
If it played out that way it’s wrong.
But what’s the harm?
The Census announced this week that US household wealth slid 35% the last 5 years to 1984 levels.
From 1984 to 2011 CT’s unfunded liabilities per household for public worker benefits climbed from under $4,000 per household to well over $35,000 today not including bonded debt for things like the New Britian busway. If we were to take the net wealth from everyone in CT 55 and under and applied that to the unfunded pension plan and health benefits for the public sector there would still be a shortfall.
Rowland’s issues are really a small issue in the context of CT’s wealth transfer from private sector workers to public sector workers.
Sure, Rowland might be wrong. It’s also largely meaningless in the larger scope of where the corruption lies.
And for those over 55? Their wealth found a new inheritance tax: the Medical Costs not covered by MediCare and/or Medicaid and appropriated by government spend down limits.
I agree its a small issue in the larger scheme of things, but its still worth discussing. I’m pretty sure we can pay attention to more than one issue at a time.
WTIC needs to clean house. Quickly. The man adds nothing but fuel to the divisive ideological fires in this state and is now jeopardizing the station’s repution.
Yeah – I am as befuddled as most of the posters. I do not see any illegality by Rowland, unless he failed to file some forms reporting his association with the campaign. This would only apply if the “reality” is that the $5000/month was was work for the campaign and not for his consulting wisdom for Apple Rehab.
If that is found to be the “fact”, then I see the exposure as belonging to Wilson-Foley, for directing money to the campaign in the form of Rowlands services, and failing to report that campaign contribution. Now, if Apple Rehab is wholey owned by the family, then at least it is not a theft from the company, and since the taxes have probobly not been filed, all is “probobly” well with the IRS.
Of course, if Rowland had any credibility remaining, he has totally thrown it in our faces.
Billy, Rowland has two potential problems:
if there’s an intentional deception of the FEC, he’s part of a criminal conspiracy.
and
if he took money secretly while touting LWF on the air, he may have violated payola/plugola, although — as I said — I think the feds would be loath to go there in the case of political speech.
(p.s. the fact that the FCC dismissed Krayeske’s complaint about this does not necessarily end the matter.)
As it is often said, a Grand Jury can “indict a ham sandwich.” The *suspect* has little, almost no rights in a gj investigation. It’s rough in there. Let’s see what evolves. Even though I am not fond of the Brass City son, I need to reserve judgment. We need to be fair.
BTW, I’m no poet, but what is it with the poorly-metered and off-topic attempts at poems here?
I-Can-Even-Put-Up-with…, meet Todd. He apparently doesn’t like Colin, liberals, Obama, Susan Campbell (at least not any more, but this is now), and many other things/ideas/people, and this is how he lets us all know. And when his comments are taken down, he claims it’s censorship.