Michigan campaign finance law limits the amount of money a candidate committee can give to another.  It limits the amount of money an individual can give to another.  But a committee like Schauer's?  They're able to spend their money much more liberally.  

In other words, when Whitmer, Brater, Prusi, Schauer and the lot bumped up against donation limits they had to find some other way to pump their extra cash into the targeted races.  The SDCC became a big giant washing machine.  Insert money, detergent, rinse, repeat.

And make no mistake, that's exactly what they did.  When you get right down to brass tacks, each of these campaigns laundered money through the SDCC into targeted state senate districts, effectively skirting campaign donation limits in violation of Michigan law.

Problem was, they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar.  Each of the current state Senators accused of giving illegally demanded and received refunds from the Committee as soon as the press caught their scent.  Their cases were formally closed in March by the Secretary of state.  All of them... almost.  Mark Schauer refuses to pursue a legal remedy and remains under investigation.

Which is fitting, since Schauer chaired the committee and made nearly half the total "contributions" personally.  The Battle Crek Enquirer reported in December:

The fund raked in $440,000 above the legal limit of $20,000 per person - which the Dems don't deny. Twelve senatorial candidate committees did, with Schauer's as the worst offender at $187,000...

For state races, this is a staggering chunk of change. The grievance is pretty cut and dried...

All told Mark Schauer stands accused of twenty-two distinct campaign finance violations.  

But that's all old news.  What's happened since?  Inquiries made to the secretary of state's office produced a series of e-mail and phone conversations consisting, essentially, of one long "no comment."  SoS spokeswoman Kelly Chesney says that the drawn out process is a matter of strict legality.  The office is required by law to take their time.

"This campaign finance complaint you are referring to alleges violations involving 13 different parties," said Chesney via email.  "Decisions have been rendered on 6 parties.   When addressing campaign finance complaints, we have to follow a prescribed process outlined in law that allows the complainant and the alleged violator the opportunity to present themselves fully.  Further it requires the MDOS to offer conciliation.  This is not discretionary."

The legal process she cites is the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, Act 388 of 1976, 169.215 section 15.  

Which, by the way, is a big section of law that addresses a lot of things but doesn't discuss timelines.  Nor does it allow the reader to draw any conclusions as to why six investigations wrapped up quietly a month ago while seven remain open with little evident movement.  

Asked specifically what the hold up seems to be Chesney offered, in total: "Again, 13 different parties were involved in this complaint."  Maybe they're understaffed and unable to handle the load?

Speaking last year on Off the Record, a political affairs program based in Lansing, Attorney General Mike Cox told the media panel that his office stood ready to take over should the Secretary of state ask for his assistance.  With the investigations finally starting to produce some formal, legal results one might assume the decision on whether or not to bring in the State's top lawyer may not be far in the future.  But you know what they say about assumption.

"The Campaign Finance Act requires us to attempt to resolve complaints informally, if we determine that there is reason to believe that a violation has occurred, before the matter can be referred to the AG," claims Chesney.  "We must follow the procedure outlined in the statute."

Again, that'd be the Michigan Campaign Finance Act, Act 388 of 1976, 169.215 section 15.  

Of course, the Minority Leader's supporters will be quick to claim that the lack of a resolution proves there's "nothing to" the allegations.  But that argument doesn't exactly hold water.  If there's nothing to them, or if they're no big deal why didn't Schauer settle with the SoS along with his colleagues?  Why hasn't the case against him been dismissed out of hand and taken off the books?  Instead the investigation is 'ongoing' and the complaints remain open.

The message from the Secretary of state's office seems to be, in essence, 'we know Schauer probably broke the law, we know he probably committed as many as 22 violations of campaign finance law, we're just not going to do anything about it.'  

Why the office is reluctant to pursue a resolution to one of the largest alleged campaign finance violations in the history of the state of Michigan is anyone's guess.  Where in the chain of command the decision was made to give Schauer a pass is also a matter of speculation.  

The only thing that's clear at this point is the message Mark Schauer and the Secretary of state's Office are delivering to campaigns headed into the 2008 general election.  `Laundering money is cool kids.  Try it yourselves.'