Palin Legal Defense Fund Illegal, Money To Be Returned

A state investigation has concluded, apparently with Sarah Palin’s agreement, that the legal defense fund establish while she was Governor was illegal and that the money must be returned:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – Thousands of donors who contributed to a $390,000 legal defense fund for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin will get their money back after an investigator said Thursday the fund was illegal because it was misleadingly described on a website.

State Personnel Board investigator Timothy Petumenos said the Alaska Fund Trust inappropriately used the word “official” on its website, wrongly implying that it was endorsed by Palin in her role as governor.

But Petumenos also found that Palin — the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee — acted in good faith and relied on a team of attorneys to make sure the fund was lawful and complied with the Alaska Executive Branch Act.

Outside of returning the money, Palin doesn’t face any other liability since it appears that it was her attorneys that screwed up here, not her. Nonetheless, it’s another headline that I’m sure she doesn’t want to see.

FILED UNDER: Politicians, Quick Takes, Sarah Palin, US Politics
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Patrick T. McGuire says:

    I am confused here, just what is the point of this blog post?

  2. Jay Tea says:

    DAMN that Palin! She should have known, even after consulting three different law firms, that calling her legal defense fund “official” to differentiate the ones that weren’t directly tied to her was a violation of Alaska’s not-too-convoluted-at-all ethics laws!

    J.

  3. Did I say she did anything wrong ?

    Umm, no

  4. James Joyner says:

    Maybe I should come up with a more descriptive name for the Quick Takes section, since people seem confused as to what it is. Fundamentally, it’s a place for non-analytical posts providing links or summaries or quips on things that may be interesting to readers.

  5. Michael says:

    non-analytical posts providing links or summaries or quips on things that may be interesting

    I think those are typically called “tweets”. Or “dents’ if you’re an identi.ca user.

  6. TangoMan says:

    Doug,

    You’re a lawyer and so it’s pretty inexcusable for you to use general, instead of specific, language to convey a point which thus leads the reader to an erroneous conclusion.

    “legal defense fund establish while she was Governor was illegal and that the money must be returned:” is a reference that is far different in meaning than stating “Palin agrees to refund all donations to the fund received before her resignation as Governor.”

    James.

    What good are quick takes if they’re inaccurate summations of the event being reported?

  7. Juneau: says:

    Would it kill anyone here to have a headline that says something like “Palin exonerated?”

    Carefully neutral is fine. But she was railroaded what, 25 times? And came out clean. Give credit where credit is due.