At least a couple of items in today’s coverage of the Jim Black case merit follow-up remarks.
First, much as I admire Rob Christensen‘s work, he’s being far too charitable when he describes the former speaker as “getting caught up in a fund raising scandal.” No, Jim Black orchestrated the scandal. He paid off Michael Decker to help keep his position of power and thwart the will of North Carolina’s voters. Black accepted an illegal campaign payoff in an IHOP bathroom, urging the payer never to say anything to anyone about the deal. Black sat at the top of the pyramid of players in this shady fundraising scheme.
Second, and more important, Judge Stephens’ comments suggest that complaints about Black’s payment of his fine are “idiotic” because those making the complaints are looking a gifthorse in the mouth. But that’s not the full story.
Unlike some of my colleagues, I’m not a stickler about the size of the $1 million fine. Stephens set the fine. He was not bound to set it; he was not bound to set it at a particular dollar amount.
But Stephens obviously thought the size of the penalty was important when he sentenced Black on July 31, 2007:
The citizens of North Carolina ? each one of them is the victim of Dr. Black’s crimes. The institution of the North Carolina legislature ? and specifically the North Carolina House of Representatives ? is the victim of Dr. Black’s crime. And his conduct has certainly shaken the public’s confidence, if they ever had any, in the integrity of that institution. And his legacy leaves just an absolutely defacing stain upon that institution.
So do I simply impose a sentence that runs concurrently with the federal sentence, so he’s really not punished at all by the state for a crime for whom the victims are the people of the state? Even though his punishment is appropriate and already very severe? …
I do believe that the way you punish a person who has abused political influence and has abused money and has abused power is by taking away that influence and that power and also by taking away that money. I think the federal government has taken care of the taking away the power and taking away the influence. Thus the purpose of my sentence: to take away the money. [Emphasis added.]
I don’t have a big problem with Stephens deciding ? two years later ? that $500,000 and some property are good enough.
But let’s be honest about it. Let’s not suggest that property valued at $150,000 has magically morphed into property valued at more than $600,000 at a time when the economy is in the tank.
Stephens and Wake District Attorney Colon Willoughby should admit that they’re willing to accept this as the best deal they’re likely to get from Black. Willoughby said as much during an interview with David Bass for Carolina Journal. (Check out the last couple of paragraphs here.)
Willoughby and Stephens should explain why the state isn’t going to go after Black’s other property or make him sell enough property to pay the rest of his fine in cash. Why make the Wake County school system the owner of Mecklenburg County property of questionable value? Those are legitimate questions. Public officials ought to have legitimate answers for them.
By being open and honest about it, Willoughby (and Stephens, for that matter) could shed some light on the difficulties the state faces in collecting fines from criminals. Perhaps changes in state law might make that process easier.
Another reason why the complaints about this deal are more than valid is the link between the fine and the ongoing efforts to free Black from federal prison. If Black’s lawyers are going to sell a story to the feds about the debt he’s paid to society, the feds and public need to know that he never really paid $1 million.
