TO: Interested Parties
FROM: American Bridge 21st Century and Majority PAC
DATE: June 1, 2012
RE: Josh Mandel FBI Investigation

When Josh Mandel became Ohio’s Treasurer barely a year ago, he was entrusted to act as a responsible steward of the state’s funds. Mandel quickly violated that trust by failing to fulfill the responsibilities of his job so he could campaign for a Senate seat instead.

Mandel has also acted irresponsibly by flouting campaign finance rules. Questionable contributions made to his Senate campaign by employees of Suarez Corporation are now under investigation by the FBI. The suspicious nature of the donations was raised by the press to Mandel last year, as it was noted how unusual it was for multiple employees (and their spouses) of the same company, many whom have never before given to federal campaigns, to each make maximum donations to the same candidates. Yet Mandel refused to investigate the donations, and returned them only after the press reported on the existence of an FBI investigation.

And though he has now returned $105,000 in tainted donations, Mandel has yet to come clean. He refuses to identify when he became aware of the FBI investigation, how he learned of the investigation, and how long he waited before returning the donations. This is to say nothing of whether he knew that the contributions were illegal before they were made, and still chose to accept them anyway.

With the FBI investigating these contributions to Mandel’s campaign, Ohio voters are asking the same question: what is Josh Mandel hiding?

BACKGROUND

Mandel Donations From Company “Unusual.” According to the Toledo Blade, Josh Mandel reported some “unusual” donations on his second quarter finance report. Benjamin Suarez, owner of “a direct marketing company that does $100 million annually in sales” has been a major Republican donor. In the current cycle, however, “a large number of his employees and their wives — many of whom have never before given to federal campaigns — have contributed to two specific congressional candidates: Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, a Republican running for U.S. Senate, and U.S. Rep. Jim Renacci (R., Wadsworth), who represents Ohio’s 16th District. All together, 17 employees from Canton-based Suarez Corporation have contributed to one or both candidates, according to federal campaign filings. Sixteen of those employees (and six of their spouses) have given $5,000, the maximum amount allowed under federal election law. For some of the employees and their spouses, that adds up to $20,000. In all, Mr. Suarez, his employees, and their spouses gave $100,000 to Mr. Mandel’s campaign and $100,250 to Mr. Renacci’s campaign. [Toledo Blade, 8/19/11]

Mandel On Questionable Donations: “We Have No Reason To Believe” That Anyone Has Violated Law. In an interview with the Dayton Daily News, Mandel was asked about the questionable donations taken from Suarez Corporation employees. He stated that “We have no reason to believe whatsoever that anyone has stepped across the letter of the law or the spirit of the law here.” [Dayton Daily News, 10/2/11]

Mandel’s “Unusual Contributions” From Employees Of Suarez Corporation Prompted FBI Investigation For Possible Campaign Finance Violations. “Unusual contributions to the campaigns of U.S. Rep. Jim Renacci (R., Wadsworth) and Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel have prompted a federal investigation. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Cleveland requested fund-raising records from the treasurer of Mr. Renacci’s campaign four or five months ago, according to Mr. Renacci’s chief of staff, James Slepian. ‘We reiterate that to our knowledge no donations our campaign has received were made improperly, but if we find out these or any other donations were given improperly they will be returned immediately,’ Mr. Slepian said. A spokesman for Mr. Mandel’s U.S. Senate campaign also confirmed the investigation. ‘The campaign is aware of the investigation and is fully cooperating,’ said Travis Considine, spokesman for the Mandel campaign. ‘Neither the campaign nor anyone associated with it is a target of the investigation.” [Toledo Blade,5/21/12]

Maximum Contributions For Half Of The 16 Employees Represented Significant Portion Of The Value Of Their Homes, Including Some Who Had Never Before Contributed To A Political Campaign. “It is unusual, however, for those who have never contributed to a federal campaign to give the maximum allowable amount. Moreover, a review of publicly available Stark County auditor records shows that about half the employees who contributed to the two campaigns own homes valued at $66,000 to $183,000. Five own homes valued at more than $300,000. Mr. Suarez’s home is valued at $2.3 million.” [Toledo Blade, 5/21/12]

Some Suarez Corporation Employees Who Donated Maximum To Mandel’s Campaign “Lived In Modest Neighborhoods And Held Job Titles Such As Copy Writer.” The (Toledo) Blade reported in August that 17 Suarez Corporation Industries employees and some of their spouses gave a combined $100,000 to the Mandel campaign and $100,000 to the Renacci campaign. Some had never given to political campaigns before, lived in modest neighborhoods, and held job titles such as copy writer.” [Dayton Daily News, 5/21/12]

Mandel Returned $105,000 In Campaign Contributions To Suarez Corporation Employees In Wake Of FBI Investigation. “Ohio Treasurer Josh Mandel, the GOP candidate for the U.S. Senate, has returned $105,000 in campaign donations to 21 employees at a North Canton direct-marketing firm following reports that federal investigators sought records about contributions he and U.S. Rep. Jim Renacci received from the company. In a letter sent to Suarez Corporation Industries dated Tuesday, Mandel’s campaign treasurer Kathryn Kessler said, ‘We have decided to issue refunds for any contributions that appear to be under investigation by federal authorities.’ ‘We believe we have no reason to be concerned with the contribution, but out of an abundance of caution and until the investigation is complete, we believe this course of action is most appropriate,’ the letter said.” [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 5/23/12]

Mandel Would Not Say How Long He Had Been Aware Of FBI Investigation Into Suarez Corporation Contributions To His Campaign, Despite Refunding Contributions. “In a letter to the donors, Mr. Mandel’s campaign treasurer, Kathryn Kessler, said the campaign was refunding ‘any contributions that appear to be under investigation by federal authorities.’ ‘We believe we have no reason to be concerned with the contributions, but out of an abundance of caution and until the investigation is complete, we believe this course of action is most appropriate,’ Ms. Kessler’s letter said. Although the campaign provided a copy of the letter to The Blade, it would not explain the timing of the decision or how long it has been aware of the federal probe.” [Toledo Blade, 5/25/12]

President Of Suarez Corporation Called President Obama A “Communist,” Said FBI Investigation Was “Punishment” For Republican Donations And Was Disrupting Company Operations. “Benjamin Suarez, the president of Suarez Corp. Industries, said the FBI investigation of his employees’ contributions to two Republican candidates has significantly disrupted company operations, damaged employee morale, delayed the launch of five products and postponed the hiring of about 2,000 workers at SCI’s North Canton facility. Suarez said he has had to spend $500,000 to pay attorneys, rather than hire workers to assemble new products. ‘This FBI thing has totally disrupted our company,’ said Suarez. ‘This communist (President Barack) Obama says he’s all about jobs. Well, he’s killing jobs.’ He said that SCI, which is based in Jackson Township, has given federal investigators financial records and W-2 statements that, he says, proves his employees could afford to make the political contributions. ‘If this had been a regular investigation, this would have been dropped. They’re going to do everything in their power to coerce, every dirty trick in the book,’ he said. ‘This is punishment because we’re Republican donors.’” [Canton Repository, 5/24/12]

President Of Suarez Corporation Acknowledged That He Had Received Request From Mandel’s Campaign To Inquire With Employees About Contributions, But Denied Any Reimbursement. “Suarez, who said neither he nor the company reimbursed the employees for the contributions, said they were eager to give generously to Renacci and Mandel because they believed Obama’s policies, the uncertainty from his health care bill and his excessive federal regulations had hurt the economy, resulting in their loss in income. At the request of Renacci and Mandel’s campaigns, Suarez said, he called Giorgio and asked him to find out if any employees wanted to contribute to the campaigns. ‘I didn’t really know who donated until I saw the Toledo Blade story,’ Suarez said.” [Canton Repository, 5/24/12]

resource: American Bridge 21st Century website

Last weekend, Emory University Hospital agreed to proceed with the lifesaving kidney transplant surgery for 2-year-old A.J.¹ The hospital’s CEO Dr. Jonathan Lewin finally admitted it was a mistake to delay important medical treatment.² Emory University was completely wrong in the first place. The surgery was supposed to occur early last month — even with the signoff from Gwinnett County Jail. Instead, the hospital canceled because the father, Anthony Dickerson has a criminal past. To punish a child for his father’s past offenses is blatant discrimination

The fight is not over. We are showing up for A.J. and his family to make sure no other family endures this type of stress and agony.

A.J and his family’s strength has never wavered. We are sending a card to the family to let them know they are not alone in the struggle. Carmen, will you please sign the card today?

In just a short time, over 43,000 Color Of Change members like you signed the petition calling on Emory University Hospital to do the surgery for A.J. With the outpouring of community support in Atlanta, A.J. is on the path to finally receive the surgery he desperately needs. Too often returning citizens and their families are pushed to the margins and struggle to gain fair access to the most basic human rights such as healthcare. We need to show an institution like Emory University Hospital that they are not above the law nor should they dictate the right of a parent. Now we must make sure, the hospital follows through on its promise.

Sign the card today and let A.J. and his family know we are on their side and are fighting for them.

It is good news that Emory University has now approved the surgery. But we still need to keep up the pressure for systemic changes that holds medical institutions accountable for negligence and abuse of power. There is a long and frightening legacy of such institutions ostracizing and exploiting Black people. No family should have to hope, beg, and plead for urgent and lifesaving care. And no parent should have to justify their right to provide and care for their child. A.J. deserves a speedy recovery and the right to live as a free, happy child.

Please sign the card.

Thanks for supporting A.J. and his family,

Scott, Rashad, Arisha, Anay, Clarise, Enchanta, Malaya, Kristen, Katrese, and the rest of the Color Of Change team

References:

1.”Emory Healthcare Approves Kidney Transplant For 2-Year-Old A.J. Burgess,” Ice Cream Convos, 11-03-2017 http://act.colorofchange.org/go/10246?t=9&akid=8140%2E1174326%2EmNpeVI

2. “Kidney transplant for toddler closer to reality after hospital CEO admits mistake,” The Telegraph, 11-03-2017 http://act.colorofchange.org/go/10247?t=11&akid=8140%2E1174326%2EmNpeVI

Last night, civil rights lawyer Larry Krasner won a crucial District Attorney’s race in Philadelphia.

Krasner, who has defended Black Lives Matter activists in court, is on the record saying: ¹

1. “Policing and prosecution are both systemically racist…You have to be willing to study that to know exactly what points need to change. Then you have to be willing to push against it and train against it if you want to change that.”
2. “We need to end cash bail. We need to fix civil asset forfeiture so no one’s property is taken without conviction. We need to decarcerate. We need to stop the death penalty.”
3. “Every study confirms that good public education means less crime and yet we won’t fund public education. We just fund jail cells. That has to stop.”

Larry Krasner gets it. And this is exactly the type of bold, transformative leadership we need if we’re going to fix America’s broken criminal justice system which unfairly targets Black folks and other people of color.

Color Of Change PAC helped Larry Krasner win. During the primary election, we mobilized and trained 50 volunteers in Philadelphia and held two text-a-thons in the city. Together we sent 100,000+ peer-to-peer text messages to Black voters in Philly asking them to vote for Krasner. And he won!

In 2018, we want to do this but at a much larger scale. Color of Change PAC has a plan to flip DA races across the country. Will you contribute?

Yes, I want to help elect more District Attorneys like Larry Krasner across America.

With your donation we will:

1. Train volunteers around the country on how to use technology to mobilize Black voters and our allies
2. Scale up our cutting edge peer-to-peer texting program to turn out voters when it matters
3. Deploy hyper-targeted Facebook persuasion ads. Republicans are already doing this to suppress Black voter turnout. We need the resources to fight back.
4. Scope and build new technology that can help us win even BIGGER in 2018

…and so much more!

Here’s what’s at stake:

Black folks are 5x more likely to be incarcerated than white folks. Black women are imprisoned at the twice the rate of white women. Black children make up almost a third of all children arrested in the United States. Black people are unfairly targeted and over-incarcerated at every level! District Attorneys can help change this.²

District Attorney is one of the most powerful roles in our criminal justice system. They set prosecutor priorities and help shape sentencing. They can either choose to acknowledge that policing and prosecution are systematically racist, and commit to changing this reality – as Larry Krasner has – or run their offices like a sports league where all that matters is maximizing conviction counts

Larry Krasner calls this “a failed approach.” ¹ We believe that America can do better. We believe that America must do better by Black folks and all those unfairly targeted by bad District Attorneys.

Please chip in $20.18 (or another amount) to help transform America’s criminal justice system.

Until justice is real,

Arisha, Jenni, Bhavik, and the rest of the Color Of Change PAC team

Let’s elect Larry Krasners across America!
Sources:

1. https://act.colorofchange.org/go/10219?t=9&akid=8136%2E1174326%2EK0wNsY

2. http://act.colorofchange.org/go/10220?t=11&akid=8136%2E1174326%2EK0wNsY

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

by 1 For ALL

1. What is the First Amendment?
The First Amendment consists of the first 45 words of the Bill of Rights, ratified in December 1791, that protect the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. It serves as the blueprint for freedom of expression and religious liberty.

2. What is the value of the First Amendment to us and to the nation?
The First Amendment enables citizens to express their thoughts and beliefs in a free society. It allows citizens to practice whatever religion they wish — or no religion at all. Without the First Amendment, religious minorities could be persecuted, the government could establish a national religion, protesters could be silenced, the press could not criticize government and citizens could not mobilize for or against social change.

3.The First Amendment starts with the words “Congress shall make no law …” But don’t we sometimes limit First Amendment freedoms?
Yes, at times we do limit First Amendment freedoms. While the text of the First Amendment references that “Congress shall make no law,” there are some limited types of speech that do not receive free-speech protection. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously expressed this point when he wrote that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Holmes’s famous phrase means that not all forms of speech are protected. For example, the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, child pornography, true threats, fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action, criminal solicitation or defamation.

4. Does the First Amendment apply to private companies and organizations?
No. The First Amendment applies to the government — to protect individuals from government censorship. While the text of the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,” it means that no federal, state or local government official can infringe on your free-speech rights. A private company is not a government or state and therefore generally is not subject to the requirements of the First Amendment.

5. How does the First Amendment protect religious liberty?
It protects religious liberty through the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause — “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” — provides for separation between church and state. The free exercise clause — “or the free exercise thereof” — means that individuals can hold whatever beliefs they wish on religion or nonreligion and to freely practice those beliefs.

6. What does the establishment clause mean?
This is a difficult question that divides legislators, educators and members of the Supreme Court. It clearly means that the government may not establish a national religion. It also means that the government may not pass a law that favors one religious sect or group over another. To many, it also means that the government may not pass a law that favors religion over nonreligion. These individuals believe that the establishment clause erects a “wall of separation” between church and state.

Many agree that the establishment clause erects a degree of separation, but they simply disagree exactly how high that wall should be. Some believe that the government can acknowledge religious influences in public life. Others believe that even “In God We Trust” on money violates the church-state separation principle. Many — including Supreme Court justices — cannot agree on the constitutionality of posting Ten Commandments displays on government property.

7. What is an example of an establishment of religion?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public school teachers cannot lead their students in prayer. The Court reasoned that teachers leading students in school would place coercive pressure upon religious minorities and make it appear that the government supported a particular religion.

8. What does free exercise of religion mean under the First Amendment?
It means that people have the right to freely practice their religious faith or practice no religious faith at all. It provides absolute protection for freedom of belief and a strong degree of protection for religious conduct. People can believe whatever they wish. However, sometimes the government can step in and regulate religious practices if it has a strong enough interest — called a compelling government interest — such as the protection of children.

9. Does the First Amendment apply to schools?
Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District that students do not “shed” their free-speech rights “at the schoolhouse gate.” This means that public school students retain some level of free-expression rights, even during the school day.

10. Do students have the same level of First Amendment rights as adults?
No. The Supreme Court also said that students’ rights must be considered against the “special characteristics of the school environment.” Speech that substantially disrupts school activities, for example, is not protected by the First Amendment.

11. Is speech on the Internet entitled to as much protection as speech in more traditional media?
Yes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reno v. ACLU that speech on the Internet receives the highest level of First Amendment protection. The Supreme Court explained that “our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.” This was an important ruling, because the government had argued that speech on the Internet could be controlled to a greater extent, just like the broadcast medium. Several civil liberties groups countered that speech on the Internet should be free and open and entitled to just as much protection as the print medium.

12. May students pray or discuss religion in public schools?
Yes, students have the right to pray and discuss religion in school. Public misperception has persisted on this topic since the U.S. Supreme court struck down school-sponsored prayer in the early 1960s. In those decisions, the high court ruled that the establishment clause does prohibit schools from allowing or engaging in school-sponsored prayer or encouraging students to pray.

But the free exercise clause protects the rights of students to pray on their own time. In fact, singling out student religious speech for punishment would indicate hostility toward religion and violate the basic First Amendment principle that the government may not punish a particular viewpoint.

This does not mean that students have an unfettered right to speak on religious subjects. Students can be punished for interrupting class time for any type of speech. Also, school officials can make sure that students are not speaking to an audience that is forced to hear them, or that they are harassing others by overzealously advocating their religious beliefs.

13. Does freedom of the press mean the news media can write or say anything they want?
Unless restricted by a valid prior restraint — which is rare — the news media are free to publish any information or opinion they desire. This freedom, however, does not immunize them from liability for what they publish. A newspaper that publishes false information about a person, for example, can be sued for libel. A television station similarly can be sued if it broadcasts a story that unlawfully invades a person’s privacy. Because such liability can be staggering, most journalists strive to exercise their freedom to publish in a responsible and ethical manner.

14. Is truth a defense in libel lawsuits?
Truth is an absolute defense against libel claims, because one of the elements that must be proven in a defamation suit is falsity. If a statement is true, it cannot be false, and therefore there is no prima facie case of defamation. There are numerous jurisdictions, including Florida, that have adopted the substantial-truth doctrine, which offers protection to a defendant of a defamation claim as long as the “gist” of the story is true.

15. What difference does it make in defamation if a person is a public official?
It makes a huge difference, because public officials and public figures have a much higher burden of proof to prove defamation than do private persons. In the 1964 ruling New York Times v. Sullivan, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements regarding public officials, unless the statement was made with actual malice — “with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.” The Court set a new standard by requiring that a public-official defamation plaintiff show evidence of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence. If the plaintiff is a private person, then he or she generally only needs to show that the defamer was at fault — or negligent — in making the statement.

16. Why are public officials and public figures treated differently in defamation law?
The reason for the distinction between public and private figures is that public officials often have greater access to channels of communication to counteract false statements. If a celebrity is defamed, he or she can call a press conference and rebut the statement. If a private person is defamed, he or she usually doesn’t have nearly the same level of access.

17. What is indecent speech?
Indecent speech generally refers to speech that is of a sexual or vulgar nature but does not cross the line into unprotected obscenity, or even material that is “harmful to minors.” Indecent speech is protected speech for adults, but often can be regulated for minors, particularly younger minors. Under rules of the Federal Communications Commission, broadcast indecency is “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” By “contemporary community standards,” the FCC means the standard “of an average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant.”

18. What is the difference between the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association?
Freedom of assembly is explicitly guaranteed in the First Amendment, securing the right of people to meet for any purpose connected with government. Freedom of association protects the activities and composition of such meetings. This right is not explicitly set out in the Constitution but is instead derived from fundamental privacy interests and the rights of speech, petition and assembly.

19. How has freedom of assembly helped society?
Freedom of assembly was the essential freedom in the women’s suffrage movement of the 1910s and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. These protesters — often the in the face of public scorn and official arrest — braved the streets and sidewalks to denounce policies and to advocate positions that placed them in direct opposition to official authorities. Freedom of assembly enables people to gather together to make a powerful statement, a statement much more potent than anyone could make as a single individual.

20. What is petitioning?
Historically, a petition was a written request stating a grievance and requesting relief from a ruling authority, such as a king. In modern America, petitioning embraces a range of expressive activities designed to influence public officials through legal, nonviolent means

21. What does the petition clause of the First Amendment guarantee?
Courts seldom address the petition clause in isolation, instead grouping it with other rights to free association and collective speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that the right to petition at least provides the opportunity to institute nonfrivolous lawsuits and mobilize popular support to change existing laws in a peaceful manner

created by 1forall.us