[As you read this, please note that the Hillary Clinton Campaign has acknowledged to Chief Justice George’s attorney that he appears on their campaign reports in error. So my story was based on inaccurate information on the FEC website, and my accusation was, as it turns out, unfounded. See more here – Flash]
Just a few minutes ago, I got off of the phone with Beth Jay, the Principal Attorney for Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. She called me in response to my commentary this morning taking the Chief Justice to task for what appear to be many contributions to the Hillary Clinton for President campaign back in 2008.
While telling me that she can understand why I could have reached the conclusion that Justice George had made those contributions (hmmm, because the FEC website identified the contributor’s name and occupation in each instance as "GEORGE, RONALD" and "STATE OF CALIFORNIA/JUSTICE" respectively. See the graphic that is cut straight from the FEC website..), the Chief Justice simply did not make the contributions.
A further look online shows that the Hillary Clinton for President campaign reported that their contributor, Ronald George of San Francisco was occupied as "Chief Justice/State of California."
Jay wrote to me in a follow-up email, "I spoke directly to the Chief after reading your blog (he is attending the Conference of Chief Justices) and he informed me specifically and unequivocally that he had not made the contributions cited in the FEC report. To the best of his recollection, his last contribution to a political candidate was in the sum of approximately $100 to Pete Wilson when he ran for Governor."
Jay says that there is a Ron George who lives at the address on FEC records, but that it is not the Chief Justice. Which does not explain the occupation being filled in as such on Clinton campaign documents.
Jay says that she is working to track down the origin of the misinformation in the FEC Report.
I will only say at this point that this is a bizarre situation. Assuming Jay’s assertions on behalf of George are correct — then the theory is that the Chief Justice is the "victim" of a drive-by donation allegation, which is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing.
We’ll see how this story develops.
(P.S. I wonder if this "other" Ron George knowingly impersonated the Chief Justice? Or if the Clinton campaign made an assumption. Seems to me that someone could be liable for a lawsuit. I, frankly, can think of nothing more defaming of one’s character than to be incorrectly listed as a donor to Hillary Clinton.)