Fraters Libertas

Mike Hatch & The Star Tribune: Too Close For Comfort?

( Note: Regular reader and e-mail contributor EB has been pushing for a post on what appears to be less than objective reporting by the Minneapolis Star Tribune on Minnesota's Attorney General Mike Hatch. Hatch has always had a a cozy relationship with the paper and he's been a master at getting positive coverage from the Strib. I know from sources close to the action that a couple of years ago when Hatch was going after Allina Health System and their Medica HMO for mismanagement and excessive perks there was information that appeared in articles in the Strib that could only have been leaked to the paper by someone in Hatch's office or, as many theorized, by Hatch himself. It wasn't anything illegal and I realize that government agencies often use the media to advance their cases but it is interesting to keep in mind when you consider the paper has pretty much given him a free pass in this most recent controversy.

Since EB is quite passionate on the matter I'll let him explain the circumstances of this latest example of the Strib holding Hatch to a different standard than other public officials. The most recent Strib article on the matter (and the only one still available online) appeared on Friday May 23rd. What I find striking is that while the mere appearance of impropriety on the part of Commerce Commissioner Glenn Wilson was enough for the Strib to publish several articles, the fact that Hatch's original proposal to have the insurance company make a charitable donation was not legal is barely mentioned. And the auditor's report does state that "Although we do not think he violated the law, we are troubled by some aspects of the attorney general's actions," something which you would have thought worthy of attention instead of being buried near the end of the story. )

Here's what EB has to say on the matter:

Ordinarily, when the newspaper of record discovers that the State Attorney General negotiated a "settlement" with the insurance company it convicted of fraud to provide $3.5 million in "charitable donations" to selected charities in exchange for a statement of "no wrong-doing," favorable public relations coverage, and substantial deductions from its Federal tax return --the public is dutifully informed and the demand is raised for a criminal investigation of the public official who evidently solicited a bribe.

Not the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Instead the story focused on the AG's assertions that it was the incoming administration that took the bribe, which paradoxically, decided instead to go on record by imposing a $2 million fine payable to the Minnesota treasury and kicking the insurance company out of the state. Incredibly, it was the new Commerce Commissioner, not the Attorney General, who was the subject of the "investigation," demonstrating anew the best defense is a good offense.

Something is rotten in Denmark; the facts speak for themselves. Meanwhile, there's been scant mention of this story in the local broadcast media and the Star Tribune has kept it off the front pages. The investigation's "conclusion," which exonerated Commerce, was reported on a Friday, just before the Memorial Day weekend. The Star Tribune is trying to bury this story. Why?

Assuming the facts as reported are correct, the Attorney General proposed a "settlement" to an insurance company that, in exchange for "donations" made to his personally selected "charities," would allow it to avoid the legal, social and financial consequences of a fraud conviction in State court.

That this offer was still on the table when the Pawlenty Administration was inaugurated is not even in dispute. To obscure the obvious illegality of his actions, Hatch merely claimed that the Pawlenty Administration, in return for a campaign donation, reduced the amount of the "settlement," which the Star Tribune now seems in earnest to refer to as the original "fine."

The investigation centered on Commerce and its commissioner, Glenn Wilson, based solely on Mike Hatch's unsubstantiated allegations after the fact. They did not investigate who put the "settlement" offer on the table, they investigated those who rejected the offer. The issue was framed in the context of campaign donations, not in the context of the original proposal, which was a prima facie case for bribery and extortion.

The larger issue is that where there's smoke, there's fire. Imagine the cajones on Mike Hatch --that he is so certain of his invulnerability that he could put such a deal in play. It's as if Elliot Spitzer offered Merrill Lynch a chance to avoid conviction by donating $3.5 million to N.O.W. and the Rainbow Coalition.............it just doesn't pass the smell test, except in Minnesota apparently.

Given what's finally happened at The New York Times and the way the Star Tribune has circled its wagons around Mike Hatch, the time is ripe to shake this tree. It's a certainty this is not the first time such a "settlement" has been used. Rather, it's just the first time it's been exposed.

This is the Attorney General of Minnesota, for Chrissake. The standard is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. In a state where the newspaper of record sees fit to challenge the governor's new SUV on the front pages, how is it that the illegal settlement offered to a Florida corporation convicted of insurance fraud by the State's Attorney General isn't even discussed?