Why RI Ethics Commission Dismissed Complaint - Lead Paint Saga

It's easy to cry "politics" in the Rhode Island (RI) Ethics Commission's dismissal August 22nd of J. William Harsch's complaint against RI Attorney General Patrick Lynch.  The issue was a campaign contribution to Lynch from those associated with the DuPont agreement.  That agreement let DuPont off the hook from being a defendant in RI lead paint trial II. But, the RI Ethics Commission presents legal justification for its decision.

According to THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL writer Bruce Landis, who was present at the hearing, the Commission staff report indicates that Lynch's acceptance of the campaign contribution while negotiating an agreement with DuPont provides "an appearance of impropriety, if not evidence of poor judgment."

However, the Commission decided that the complaint as filed by Harsch, who is opposing Lynch in the November election for AG, did not allege facts that would meet the standard established by the RI Supreme Court to constitute a violation of the law pertaining to campaign contributions going to government officials.  The Commission explicitly cited, reports Landis, the 1994 RI Supreme Court decision pertaining to former Gov. Edward DiPrete.  In that decision, the RI Supreme Court ruled that for a violation to exist, there must be proof of an "understanding" between the government official and the donor that the contribution would influence the official's behavior.

After the hearing, Harsch commented that the Commission might have arrived at its decision by misinterpreting the law or possibly the law as it stood was ambiguous.  He plans to remedy that by presenting this issue to the RI General Assembly.