Prosecutor Faces Allegations of Campaign Finance Violations, Disputes Claim

Macomb County Prosecutor Peter Lucido has found himself at the center of a campaign finance controversy, with allegations of violations stemming from a newsletter sent from his public email address that linked to his campaign website. While some of the allegations were rejected by the state, the issue has sparked a legal battle and raised questions about the appropriate use of public resources for political purposes.

Uncovering the Allegations and the State's Response

Allegations of Campaign Finance Act Violations

Former Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer filed a complaint against Lucido, alleging multiple violations of the state's Campaign Finance Act. The complaint included claims that Lucido had sent "happy notes, congratulatory letters and tributes," which Brewer argued were campaign materials. However, the state rejected these allegations, stating that such communications were not considered campaign materials under the act.

The Disputed Newsletter Link

The state did find that Lucido may have violated the Campaign Finance Act when a newsletter from his public email address included a link to his campaign website. Lucido's attorney, Andrea Hansen, responded to the complaint, claiming the link was inadvertently included and has since been corrected. Hansen also argued that there was no ascertainable value to the hidden link in the newsletter and that no public resources were used in these circumstances.

The State's Informal Resolution Process

The letter from the state indicates that the matter is now in the informal resolution process. If the secretary of state is unable to correct or prevent further violations through these informal methods within 90 business days, the matter may be referred to the attorney general for enforcement of any criminal penalty or a hearing for enforcement of any civil violation.

Brewer's Reaction and Concerns

Brewer touted the state's letter as a "victory" for county taxpayers, arguing that they "shouldn't have to subsidize Lucido's political campaigns." Brewer also expressed concern that allowing such practices could open up a "major loophole" in the law, enabling any elected official to include a link to their campaign website in every email they send.

Lucido's Response and Confidence

Lucido, in a statement, described the matter as a "desperate attempt" by Brewer to generate negative media coverage about his re-election campaign. He expressed confidence that the state would be able to reach a "full and final resolution" of the issue, stating that he is "glad to provide" the necessary information to the department.

Ongoing Legal Battles

In addition to the state complaint, Brewer has also filed two complaints with the county's ethics board against Lucido. One of these complaints has been dismissed, while the other has been forwarded to a public hearing. The remaining complaint alleges that Lucido used county property, buildings, and offices to create a photo for political campaign purposes. Lucido has disputed this allegation, and the matter has ended up in court, with Lucido filing a lawsuit against the county's top attorney and ethics board to stay the proceedings.

The Disqualification Dispute

The legal battle has taken an interesting turn, with Lucido asking the presiding judge, James Maceroni, to disqualify himself from the case due to a $100 campaign contribution made to Lucido's election opponent, Christina Hines. Lucido has stated that Brewer is the leader and/or adviser for Hines' political campaign, raising concerns about potential conflicts of interest. The motion to disqualify Maceroni was ultimately denied, and the case has been reassigned to the Oakland County chief circuit judge.

The Path Forward

As the legal proceedings continue, the issue of Lucido's alleged campaign finance violations remains unresolved. The state's informal resolution process is ongoing, and the outcome of the ethics board complaint and the court case will likely have a significant impact on the final resolution of this matter. The case has highlighted the complexities and challenges surrounding the appropriate use of public resources for political purposes, and the need for clear and enforceable campaign finance regulations.