State Election Division Attorneys Offer Legal Memorandum To Help Defeat Ft. Wayne Ordinance

Opponents lobbying to defeat a proposed ordinance in the City of Ft. Wayne to bar city contractors from making contributions to city candidates get more help from attorneys with the Indiana Elections Division. Councilor Tim Pape (D) shared with the Journal-Gazettte's Benjamin Lanka a memo the Elections Division's co-counsel penned against the proposed ordinance:

Dale Simmons and Leslie Barnes, co-counsels for the state division, wrote a four page memo dated Monday providing detailed reasoning for why the proposal does not comply with state law.

"We believe the proposed ordinance unlawfully attempts to exercise the 'power to conduct elections,' which is a power expressly withheld from municipalities by the General Assembly," they wrote. "If this were not so, it would be easy to anticipate the confusion wrought in the administration of elections by numerous and conflicting local campaign finance regulations."

The reasons cited by the election division are similar to those cited by critics since the proposal was first discussed: mainly, state law prevents local communities from enacting their own election or campaign finance restrictions . . .

Pape sent the opinion to Council Attorney Joe Bonahoom and asked for his reasoning to decide the bill was appropriate.

Bonahoom said home rule allows a city to exercise any power not denied by the state. While state law does withhold the power to conduct elections, Bonahoom said this bill seeks only to regulate city contracts, not political contributions.

"This is really an effort to regulate local purchases and local contracts," he said.

Bonahoom said while a judge might disagree with him, generally when there is doubt to whether a unit of government has the authority to regulate an action, the government gets the benefit of the doubt in the matter.

Simmons and Barnes said arguments to characterize the bill as a contract issue instead of a campaign law fail because the bill revolves around campaign contributions and prohibitions, penalties and reporting requirements.

"In sum, the ordinance attempts to alter, supplement and contradict state election law regarding political contributions," they wrote.

Bonahoom said attorneys are notorious for having varied opinions on difficult legal matters, and the state election board has a vested interest in keeping control of all election powers.

"While I respect their opinion, it would seem to me that they have an interest in protecting their sovereign authority based on State law," Bonahoom wrote in response to Pape's request.

It's curious that the State Elections Division has done nothing to nullify a Jeffersonville ordinance enacted in 2006 which limits campaign contributions by city contractors to $200 a year if it believes such ordinances violate state law. It also confirms Secretary of State Charlie White's contention that he really has no power over the State Elections Division to administer election law in this state.

Goldsmith Defends Lugar Against Attack Ad On Bailouts

The campaign of U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar has chosen an unlikely person to defend him against an attack ad being aired by the conservative PAC, Club for Growth, hitting Lugar for votes in favor of federal bailouts, including a bailout vote for New York City back in the 1970s. For those of you old enough to remember, New York City faced bankruptcy back in the 1970s and received assistance in the form of federally-backed loan guarantees to shore up its debt problems. Defending Lugar against the misleading ad in a letter to the editor in today's Star are Deputy New York Mayor Stephen Goldsmith and D.C. lobbyist David Gogol:

Thirty-three years ago, the biggest default story in America was not the federal government but New York City. A House Democrat majority proposed a bailout that could have cost taxpayers $2 billion. The crisis, which could very well have cascaded across the country, was averted when one freshman conservative Republican senator from Middle America shocked everyone with the courage and imagination to craft a solution that fully protected federal taxpayers.

Now that same Republican is being castigated for this very political courage and creativity that have exemplified his career. A paid television commercial strangely takes this act of fiscal conservatism and leadership and turns it upside down, claiming that the senator has been part of the Washington bailout problem and that "he even voted to bail out  New York City."

The senator is Republican Dick Lugar and the charge is simply wrong. Now more than ever we need senators who know how to force government to operate both effectively and within its means.

A little history:

In 1978, as New York City lurched toward defaulting on its debt, national credit markets began to respond nervously. The state of New York -- with its own problems and a relatively small budget itself -- could not step in, creating even greater concern as to the consequences of default by the largest city in America.

With Democrats controlling both Houses of Congress and the White House, the only issue was how much and under what terms would New York City receive help.

Lugar did not support the initial legislation. Although concerned about the impact of bankruptcy on the country, he had three principal objections:

The loan guarantees did not force financial discipline. If New York City had too much debt, how would giving it more debt be helpful?

Federal and Hoosier taxpayers were not protected. If New York City defaulted on the federally guaranteed debt, the U.S. taxpayer took the loss.

Without imposing any restrictions on open-ended guarantees, every city would follow along asking for federal assistance.

Despite his status as a freshman with less than two years in the Senate, he chose to confront the president, leaders of the Senate such as Jacob Javits and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and the Democrat supermajority. He did so not for political gain (few Hoosier voters would care) but because the bill did not protect taxpayers.

The current ad seems to suggest the country would have been better had he given a fiery speech in opposition and then voted against a bad bill that would have passed. In private meetings, in speeches and in the media, he persuaded the Senate, and ultimately the House, that President Carter's bill would not, in the end, save New York, and the U.S. taxpayers would lose $2 billion.

His effort confused friend and foe alike. Why would Dick Lugar get involved? With no political upside, the junior senator from Indiana could have skated. His involvement and courage corrected a flawed bill and protected U.S. taxpayers.

The final bill, which contained almost all of Lugar's suggested improvements, passed with significant Republican support and required the state of New York to take a high degree of responsibility. It required elimination of spending and budgetary excesses joined with shared sacrifice by the citizens, city vendors, workers and officials. And it contained stringent repayment provisions to ensure that the federal loans were repaid on time and expeditiously.

In the end, New York City repaired its budget and repaid its debt, and the U.S. government made a profit. And no other city has ever sought federal loan guarantees.

In 1978, and as he has throughout his Senate career, Dick Lugar did not take the politically expedient road or the easy vote to make a political point. He took a politically risky road to make a difference. The New York prescription stands out sharply as a fiscally responsible example of political courage, the very opposite of the ad's political claim.

I'm not sure why Lugar's campaign would seek the assistance of Goldsmith. He is thoroughly despised by many Republicans in Indiana, who are frankly glad he now living and working in New York. Goldsmith's dirty hands, however, were all over many of the corrupt deals that have taken place under the administration of Mayor Greg Ballard the past four years.

The story of New York's debt woes actually preceded Lugar's election to the Senate. Then-President Gerald Ford turned down an initial request by New York to bail it out in 1975. The New York Daily News responded with this headline: "Ford To New York: Drop Dead." Ford eventually cowered and agreed to go along with a $2.3 billion loan to New York. It didn't help him much politically. He lost the state and the election to Jimmy Carter. In 1978, Congress passed and Lugar supported a federal loan guarantee for $1.65 billion. Most Republican senators voted against the loan guarantee in the Senate, which was overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrats.

Factcheck.org has also weighed in on Lugar's side in the debate over whether he supported the NYC bailout. The Club for Growth ad cited a $9.4 billion bailout Lugar supposedly supported for the city. Factcheck explains what he actually supported and that it wound up costing federal taxpayers nothing:

Lugar not only voted for the bill, but guided its passage and proposed an amendment that changed the initial $2 billion loan guarantee limit to $1.5 billion. (Later it was increased to $1.65 billion at the Senate-House conference meeting.)

But Lugar had nothing to do with the 1975 bailout. He was then the mayor of Indianapolis. He was not elected to the Senate until 1976. Also, it's worth noting, even this bailout didn't cost the federal government anything in the end. Pro Publica, a nonprofit investigative website, reports that "all the loans, loan premiums and fees have since been repaid."

Right or wrong, the Club for Growth ad is probably a net loss for Lugar. He is forced to defend a vote he made more than 30 years ago, reminding voters just how long he's been in the Senate. It has also forced Lugar to take to the airwaves ten months before next year's primary election to defend his record. I'm not sure why Club for Growth is hitting Lugar so hard with his votes. If the Lugar's friends in the media are to be believed, conservatives are not impressed with his challenger, Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock. Reports claim Mourdock floundered badly during an earlier appearance before Club for Growth this year. Nonetheless, the group is dropping big bucks early in the race aimed at weakening Lugar.

Dan Burton Donor Arrested As Agent For Pakistani Government

NBC's Pete Williams is reporting on the arrest of an agent of Pakistan's intelligence service for making illegal campaign contributions to several political candidates. Politico has identified Indiana's U.S. Rep. Dan Burton as receiving $5,000 from Syed Ghulam Fai.

Law enforcement sources say the FBI has arrested an agent of Pakistan's official state intelligence service, accusing him of making thousands of dollars in political contributions in the United States without disclosing his connections to the Pakistani government.

Syed Ghulam Fai will appear in federal court this afternoon in Alexandria, Virginia. He's not charged with being a spy. But he is charged with being an unregistered agent or lobbyist of the Pakistani government.

He's the exective director of a group called the Kashmiri American Council, the sources say, and he has given tens of thousands of dollars to congressional candidates and party organizations. U.S. officials say there's no reason to believe that members of Congress or other organizations that received his contributions were aware of his government connections.

Politico's Ben Smith reports that Fai also contributed to President Barack Obama, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Democratic National Committee and U.S. Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY).

Today's news comes as former U.S. Attorney Susan Brooks announces her intentions to oppose Burton for the 5th District nomination next year. Dr. John McGoff already announced his third bid to defeat Burton, and former U.S. Rep. David McIntosh is also expected to run for the 5th District seat.

UPDATE: Burton tells the Star's Maureen Groppe that he is shocked to learn his long-time supporter is actually a spy for the Pakistani government.

"I've known Dr. Fai for 20 years, and in that time I had no inkling of his involvement with any foreign intelligence operation and had presumed our correspondence was legitimate," Burton said in a statement.

Burton tells Groppe he will donate the contributions he received from Fai to charity if it turns out the contributions were illegal. According to the FEC database, Burton received $7,500 from Fai over a several year period. WISH-TV's Jim Shellas claims Burton received $10,000 from Fai, while Politico pegged the number at $5,000.

Wyss Fights Ft. Wayne Ordinance Banning Contributions From City Contractors

State Sen. Tom Wyss, not known for supporting ethics reform during his long tenure in the Indiana Senate, is openly opposing efforts by Ft. Wayne City Councilor Liz Brown (R) to ban Ft. Wayne mayoral and council candidates from accepting campaign contributions from city contractors. Wyss asked and received from the Legislative Services Agency and the state elections board opinions stating that the proposed ordinance was not authorized under state law according to the Journal-Gazette's Benjamin Lanka. Wyss, who lives in a home he owns on Indianapolis near northside while representing his Ft. Wayne district in the Senate, is now asking Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller to weigh in with a similar legal opinion.

State Sen. Tom Wyss wants Indiana’s attorney general to issue an opinion on the legality of the bill before Fort Wayne City Council that would ban city contractors from making political donations to city politicians.

In a letter dated Thursday, Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, asks Attorney General Greg Zoeller for an opinion on the bill written by Councilwoman Liz Brown, R-at large, just a few days after a divided council voted to introduce the legislation for discussion.

After being contacted by Councilman Tom Didier, R-3rd, about the issue, Wyss said he did some initial investigations to the bill’s legality. He checked with Indiana’s Legislative Services Agency and the state election board, both of which told him the bill is not permitted under state law. The request for an attorney general opinion is intended to help his constituents avoid having to pay to defend a lawsuit if the bill is challenged, Wyss said.

“I don’t want to see taxpayers pay stupid tax money to defend a suit,” he said.

Bryan Corbin, spokesman for Zoeller, confirmed the office’s receipt of the letter but said the attorney general has not yet decided whether to offer a legal opinion on the subject.

He said the opinions are not binding but are given to assist state government clients in navigating their way through complex intergovernmental questions.

Lanka has more on what Brown's proposed ordinance provides:

It would prohibit a company, company owner, company owner spouse, company subcontractor, subcontractor owner or subcontractor owner spouse from doing business with the city if that person made political donations to city candidates or elected officials during the previous year.

A company that violates the proposal would have the opportunity to have the contribution returned to avoid penalty. A company that does not remedy its violation is subject to having its contract canceled and being banned from any city contract for three years.

Opponents have argued that Brown’s bill not only has First Amendment problems but also violates state law that prohibits communities from enacting their own election or campaign finance laws.

In a separate story, Lanka picks up on the fact that another city, Jeffersonville, has had an ordinance on the book for years that severely limits the amount of money city contractors can contribute to city candidates without any legal challenges. Lanka describes the Jeffersonville ordinance that was adopted in response to the influence contributions by city contractors was having over city government:

In 2006, the Jeffersonville City Council approved an ordinance limiting how much city contractors could give to municipal candidates and elected officials. Unlike the Fort Wayne proposal, however, the law does not prohibit such political gifts.

Jeffersonville Councilman Keith Fetz, D-3rd, championed the proposal after noticing a number of no-bid contracts awarded to companies who made political contributions to the mayor at the time.

“We were all concerned it was sending the improper message that campaign contributions equal government contracts,” he said.

The law broadly addresses many areas of ethics, but Section 2.14 deals with contributions to elected officials. It essentially limits contractors who have done business in the preceding four years or are seeking a city contract from donating more than $200 to a political candidate in a year.

Larry Wilder served as Jeffersonville's counsel at the time it enacted the ordinance. He explained how the city carefully crafted the ordinance to lessen free speech concerns:

Larry Wilder, chief litigation counsel for Jeffersonville Mayor Tom Galligan, helped write the bill in 2006 when he also worked for the council. He said giving money to candidates is viewed as a form of free speech, so the city was careful not to ban political gifts outright. The council tried to determine what level of contribution would still be significant to a local race but could not finance it completely, he said.

In the city of nearly 45,000 people, Wilder said, council races can cost as little as $5,000 while mayoral candidates can spend up to $100,000. Fort Wayne’s mayoral race is expected to cost up to $1 million this year.

Wilder said he would be concerned the Fort Wayne law would be challenged because it prohibits all political donations by contractors.

Jeffersonville worked under the premise that the city could pass a law adding restrictions to state law but could not reduce state restrictions. He compared it to the fact cities can lower speed limits on state highways within their limits.

As this blog has pointed out on numerous occasions, Pay To Play is the way of doing business in Indianapolis and throughout the state with few restrictions on who can make campaign contributions. Mayor Greg Ballard receives nearly 90% of his campaign contributions from Pay To Play contractors and their employees. These are the same people who help finance his overseas junkets and provide him free meals,  and free concert and sporting event tickets. Ideally, the state would enact a uniform law that would restrict campaign contributions by government contractors, but the Jeffersonville ordinance is certainly a step in the right direction.

Don't expect any changes in Indianapolis any time soon though. Our City-County Council President, Ryan Vaughn, is a lobbyist for the state's largest law firm, Barnes & Thornburg, that lavishes large campaign contributions on state and local candidates. Vaughn's law firm effectively controls Indianapolis city government by exercising total control over the council's business through Vaughn and through its order-taker mayor, Greg Ballard.

O'Keefe Strikes Again

Project Veritas' James O'Keefe has done it again. His latest undercover video documentary project follows two individuals posing as Russian drug dealers attempting to apply for Medicaid benefits at welfare offices in the state of Ohio. Unbelievably, the welfare workers coach the men on hiding assets, not to worry about their immigration status, their illicit drug business or whether their minor sister who is turning tricks for money can obtain free abortions when she becomes pregnant. Without batting an eye, the welfare workers urge them to send their little sister to Planned Parenthood whenever she becomes pregnant. O'Keefe has been accused of selectively editing the undercover videos he has targeted against Planned Parenthood and ACORN. According to the Daily Caller, O'Keefe is providing unedited, complete footage to state attorney general offices around the nation.

Democratic City Council Candidate Has Tough Time Complying With The Law

Kostas Poulakidas, who is running for the Indianapolis City-County Council in District 4 against Republican incumbent Christine Scales, may be an attorney at a big law firm in town, but he seems to have a tough time complying with the law. A reader of this blog forwarded this photo below of a campaign sign for Poulakidas at the corner of Sherman Drive and 46th Street four months before the November election in the right of way in violation of a city ordinance regulating political signs. During the 2008 general election, Marion Co. Democratic Chairman Ed Treacy complained to the City of Indianapolis' corporation counsel because Mitch Daniels' gubernatorial campaign had placed campaign signs along Meridian Street that violated the city's ordinance regarding the size of political signs and demanded the City order the signs taken down.

The city's ordinance regulating political signs isn't the only law Poulakidas has violated. In 2010, the Indiana Civil Rights Commission found that Poulakidas had violated Indiana's Fair Housing Act by placing an ad on Craigslist for a condominium he and his wife owned at 2230 N. Pennsylvania Avenue in the Fall Creek neighborhood that indicated a preference for leasing to a couple as opposed to a single person. The National Fair Housing Alliance filed the complaint against Poulakidas because it believed he was trying to discriminate against single mothers with children. The ICRC sided with NFHA. Poulakidas, who represented himself before the ICRC, was ordered to cease and desist from posting advertisements for his condominium that expressed a preference for couples and was ordered to pay $3,663.62 for the costs NFHA incurred in pursuing the complaint against him.

New York City Losing $13.5 Billion In Property Tax Revenues Due To Exemptions And Tax Breaks

The New York Post provides some staggering statistics on the magnitude of property in New York City that is either exempt from taxation or the beneficiary of a property tax break. While the City's annual property tax revenues generate $17.6 billion in annual revenues, it is losing $13.5 billion because of tax breaks.

It might just be the ultimate act of forgiveness.

A new analysis of the city's property-tax rolls found that religious institutions, wealthy private colleges, hospitals and other nonprofits -- and even Madison Square Garden -- are exempt from an astonishing $13.5 billion in property taxes.

The Independent Budget Office, which released the review yesterday, reported that, just in the last two years, an extra $1 billion in potential property taxes were placed off limits to city tax collectors.

"Some of the breaks are permanent, and may actually be more than estimated," the IBO said, noting that the city's tax assessors don't have much reason to boost values on buildings they know to exempt.

The lengthy list of those living the zero-tax life ranged from nonprofit institutions ($2 billion in exemptions) to the MTA ($751 million) to Madison Square Garden, still enjoying the fruits of a sweet deal reached during the Koch administration that's now worth $15 million a year . . .

The story indicates Indianapolis' former Mayor Steve Goldsmith, now NYC's Deputy Mayor, is looking to move city-owned property back to the tax rolls, which owns more than 7,500 properties that could generate $5 billion in property taxes. Ironically, Goldsmith deserves a lot of the blame for tax shifting that has reached mega proportions here in Indianapolis.

Property taxes have become completely unfair, if not unconstitutional, in my judgment over time because of the number of exemptions and tax breaks afforded to some taxpayers at the expense of others. Many organizations claiming tax exemptions as nonprofits are nonprofits in name only. In reality, they operate as corporate giants with high-paid executives who run their organizations as business enterprises. Businesses with the right political connections are handed out property tax abatements and special tax incentives like candy. The creation of TIF districts allow them to command use of what property taxes they do pay to the exclusion of other taxing districts for development uses that benefit only their interests. Even more alarming, publicly-owned property is increasingly being used for private commercial benefit free of taxation. Look at Lucas Oil Stadium, Conseco Fieldhouse, Indianapolis' public golf courses or the Indianapolis International Airport, for examples of this.

Essentially, we have created a system of taxation in this country at all levels of government where the people who have enough political pull within the system can get the decision-makers to enact, interpret, apply and enforce the tax laws to curry favor with them in consideration of their political support, while shifting the tax burden to the people who lack clout to fund the costs of government. Equal protection under the law when it comes to taxation has simply become a figment of our imaginations.

Journal-Gazette Wonders If Campaign Contributions Influence City Government

Politicians throughout Indiana are bought and paid for by a relatively small group of contractors and law firms that receive the lion's share of contracts dispensed by the politicians to their benefactors. Government in Indiana is as corrupt as neighboring Illinois. The only difference is that the corruption that takes place in Indiana is not prosecuted as it occasionally is in Illinois. It doesn't help in Indiana that the news media has proven to be incompetent as watchdogs for the taxpayers. The Journal-Gazette's Benjamin Lanka makes a feeble attempt to discuss the role of pay to play in the Ft. Wayne mayor's race in a story entitled, "Do contractors' gifts taint politics?".

Money influencing politics is nothing new. People have been giving to politicians for centuries.

Yet whether the amount of money given to city politicians is problematic, especially by those seeking to do business with the city, is not an easy question, according to numerous officials.

Some argue the cure is worse than the perceived disease.

All four major mayoral candidates took contributions from people or businesses that also make money from city government, although incumbent Mayor Tom Henry hauled in by far the biggest share . . .

Henry has been successful in raising money for his re-election campaign, thanks in large part to donations given by companies – and their employees – that do business with the city.

Since the start of 2010, Henry has raised $427,750, according to campaign finance reports. A study of those reports by The Journal Gazette showed about 60 percent of that money came directly from firms working for the city or people working for those firms.

While Lanka's story mentions that 60% of his contributions came from city contractors, the story names no names. If you study contributions made to state and local officials in Indiana, you very quickly learn that the bulk of their money is coming from the same group of contractors that receive contracts from Republican and Democratic elected officials alike. So powerful is the influence of these contractors over our elected officials that it is a complete waste of time for ordinary citizens to even discuss matters that bear on these government contractors' business.

Watch any public meeting televised on Indianapolis' public access station, WCTY, and you will constantly see the voices of the public shot down in favor of the ruling class. God bless folks like Pat Andrews for attending Indianapolis city council meetings and asking the right questions, but the points she raises are met with outright lies and deceptive responses from elected councilors and members of the Ballard administration who defend their corrupt actions. Media watchdogs are nowhere in sight to hold them in check. As Andrews speaks, the camera catches the influence peddlers turning up their noses and making snarky comments to one another. They know they've bought the outcome they seek and smugly wonder why any ordinary taxpayer would think their voice could possibly matter in a public debate.

I suppose I should be thankful that at least Lanka and the newspaper that employs him asks the question of whether the contrators' money taints our governmental processes. The Star's editor, Dennis Ryerson, has declared that there is no such thing as pay to play politics and forbids his reporters from writing any stories that question the motives of the contractors who finance our elected officials' campaigns despite the overwhelming evidence of just how much it has corrupted the process. Candidate Greg Ballard four years ago bemoaned the influence government contractors had in helping then-Mayor Bart Peterson raise millions for his re-election. Back then he had to scrape together a couple of hundred thousand dollars from individual citizens who were concerned about the direction of city government. Today, he sits on a multi-million dollar campaign war chest financed almost exclusively by the same contractors who were financing his opponent's campaign. Are we to believe those people who found him so objectionable four years ago now favor him for any reason other than the fact that he's the one passing out public dollars to them?

OmniSource Deal Smells Worse The More We Learn

The IBJ's Cory Schouten picks up a few more details on how the $300,000 payment by OmniSource in consideration of Marion Co. Prosecutor Terry Curry's office agreeing to drop all criminal charges against the giant scrap metal dealer that arose out of a lengthy and costly investigation will be divided up. A $45,000 contingency fee will come off the top to pay Greg Garrison, who brought the original civil forfeiture action on behalf of the county, and a second lawyer that Terry Curry's office brought into the process after Curry took office. That would be a Democratic operative, Mark Sullivan, who is getting an equal split with Garrison, even though he came into the lawsuit very late. The deal also has an OmniSource executive claiming he was misled to believe the funds would all be paid into a fund to benefit police training.

First in line to be paid: Contingent-fee private attorneys Greg Garrison, who filed the initial civil forfeiture case while under contract with former Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, and Mark K. Sullivan, an outside attorney brought on by Curry as Garrison's co-counsel. The pair will split 15 percent of the settlement, or $45,000, plus filing fees.

The remaining $255,000 will be split, with 20 percent going to the prosecutor's office, 75 percent going to IMPD, and 5 percent for a joint fund administered by the prosecutor and director of public safety, said Chief Deputy Prosecutor David Rimstidt.

The total going to IMPD, about $191,250, does not sit well with OmniSource officials.

The company would not have agreed to the deal if they knew the settlement would pay an "ounce of tribute to this scurrilous investigation," said Ben Eisbart, a vice president at Fort Wayne-based Steel Dynamics Inc., OmniSource's parent company.

OmniSource intended the "donation" to be used for law enforcement programs, including training on how to prevent scrap-metal theft, an extension of the company's own more-than-$1 million investment in anti-theft measures at its five local scrap yards, Eisbart said.

"The citizens of Indianapolis will be infinitely better served by having well-trained individuals than by paying some lawyers," he said. "We're beside ourselves. We want to meet with the prosecutor to find out where it went off the track. This was never about money."

Garrison, for his part, is extremely upset Curry decided to drop the case against OmniSouce. "Letting those guys go in the face of the powerful evidence that supported both the criminal and civil cases is inconceivable to me," Garrison wrote in an e-mail to IBJ on Thursday. "Damn." And just who is Mark Sullivan? Let's look back at this item the AP back in 2006 about a State Police cover up of an 18-year-old murder investigation:

A grand jury has indicted two retired Indiana State Police investigators in an unsolved murder, saying they covered up evidence implicating a former Pike County prosecutor as a possible suspect in the 18-year-old slaying.

Former investigators James Verle and Larry Eck were free on bail Thursday after their arrests Wednesday on felony perjury charges.

The indictment says they misled investigators by removing then-prosecutor Mark Sullivan from a list of potential suspects in the June 1988 murder of Rick Deffendall at his Oakland City home. It also says they ordered a subordinate to exclude information that linked Sullivan romantically to Deffendall's ex-wife from state police files.

"This grand jury can only assume that the motivation for such cover-up is that such evidence would be damaging to Sullivan," the indictment said.

The indictment does not suggest Sullivan was involved in Deffendall's death, but rather faults the investigators for failing to pursue him as a suspect. State police never interviewed Sullivan in the case, the document states.

It doesn't stop there. Curry also hired a throwback to the disgraced former prosecutor James Kelley as his chief deputy, David Rimstidt, mentioned in Schouten's story discussing the OmniSource deal, who served in that same capacity for Kelley. While Kelley served as prosecutor back in the 1970s, he hired Joe Miller, a suspected drug dealer and child molester, as his grand jury bailiff in consideration for sexual favors Miller performed for Kelley according to information that I learned from a retired Indianapolis police vice officer who investigated both Miller and Kelley at the time. Kelley didn't seek re-election and left town after the Star reported his presence at a late-night party on Indianapolis' eastside where three men in attendance at the party were later executed and dumped in a field up in Hamilton County. Kelley had urged the friend of the three men who first reported them missing not to mention his presence at the party when the man met with Indianapolis police homicide investigators according to former Indianapolis Star reporter Dick Cady.

Miller, who went on to make a vast fortune manufacturing and selling an illicit recreational drug, Poppers, last year committed suicide after federal investigators raided his business and home for an undisclosed reason. Miller was one of the largest campaign contributors to state and local Democrats in the years preceding his death. Curry attended an event hosted by Indiana Stonewall Democrats in Miller's honor prior to his election as prosecutor. The more we learn about Terry Curry, the more we're concerned about the integrity of his office, which he promised to restore when he ran for the office last year.