By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
A House bill taken up for testimony Wednesday would require the Department of Attorney General to provide financial disclosures for certain kinds of litigation the office takes up.
Rep. Jason Woolford, R-Howell, said in the House Judiciary Committee that his bill, HB 5650, was long overdue and would apply “basic accountability” to the litigation process in the attorney general’s office.
The bill would require a report if total state expenditures related to litigation would exceed $250,000. The report would then be sent to both chambers’ oversight and appropriations committees within 60 days after a final order is entered, and if it is not submitted on time, the court could impose a fine of up to $1,000 per day for each day the report is overdue.
The report would have to include an explanation of the litigation and justification of the expenditures.
While he said the legislation is not partisan and would require every attorney general in the future regardless of party to follow the requirements, Woolford claimed that Attorney General Dana Nessel is
treating the agency’s budget like a “political slush fund.”
“She has eagerly gone after private citizens, concerned parents and organizations that dare disagree with her extreme agenda, all while sending the bill to you and I,” Woolford said. “Those that are watching, the Michigan taxpayers, these politically motivated lawsuits aren't about justice. They're about headlines, revenge and scoring points with our political base, and enough is enough.”
He said the bill would give real consequences to ensure good governance, as well as a reminder that “the attorney general works for us.”
Rep. Kelly Breen, D-Novi, said she “vehemently disagreed” with the attacks he made on Nessel, saying he was engaging in partisan attacks by highlighting how Nessel’s office handles litigation.
Woolford countered that Nessel is in office now, so who else is there to blame?
He also went after Breen’s comments on HB 5831, sponsored by Rep. Donni Steele, R-Orion, which was also discussed in committee and would create a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for an act of terrorism.
While Breen questioned if there was research on minimum sentencing being deterrent on crime, Woolford claimed she wouldn’t agree with this legislation because she did not even want to hold terrorists accountable.
The terrorism bill is very similar to SB 502, sponsored by Sen. Sue Shink, D-Northfield Township, which calls for minimum sentencing of 20 years for terrorist threats. The bill was prompted by Nessel.
Breen claimed the only case that would remotely approach the spending limit in Woolford’s bill would be the Flint water prosecution, which did not start under Nessel’s administration. Woolford countered that they don’t know how many lawsuits reach the threshold, and that’s the point of the legislation.
Taxpayers can see how much she is spending in her budget and boilerplate, Breen argued, but Rep. Jay DeBoyer, R-Clay, argued the AG’s budget has not provided enough details.
DeBoyer said the party affiliated with the office doesn’t matter, but transparency around spending does, claiming the office has faced multiple cases spending millions to attempt to prosecute cases that have either been lost or dismissed.
“I think the natural progression of our responsibility is to understand the financial position of the attorney general's office for that matter, and understanding every department,” DeBoyer said. “As you know, sitting on the Oversight Committee, they will not provide us the data when we ask for it, even though state statute says that they're required to. They say, ‘take us to court.’ What a disrespectful perspective for the people of state of Michigan,” DeBoyer said.
One back and forth include how much was spent on the false electors case, a multiple defendant case that went on for years following a group of electors claiming President Donald Trump won Michigan in 2020, recently adjourned following the court’s decision to not bind over the defendants for trial. Woolford claimed no one can point to what the actual dollar amount is.
Breen said the office claims the amount was $3,430.79. If she believed that was the actual cost, Woolford said, he wants Breen to “come with (him) to Arizona because (he’s) got ocean front property” for her.
The committee adopted a technical substitute on the bill for repetitive language but did not take an overall vote on the bill. The terrorism bill was reported on party lines with Democrats abstaining.
The attorney general’s office did not respond to requests for comment on Woolford’s claims or the cost of the false electors case.
Gongwer News Service
A House bill taken up for testimony Wednesday would require the Department of Attorney General to provide financial disclosures for certain kinds of litigation the office takes up.
Rep. Jason Woolford, R-Howell, said in the House Judiciary Committee that his bill, HB 5650, was long overdue and would apply “basic accountability” to the litigation process in the attorney general’s office.
The bill would require a report if total state expenditures related to litigation would exceed $250,000. The report would then be sent to both chambers’ oversight and appropriations committees within 60 days after a final order is entered, and if it is not submitted on time, the court could impose a fine of up to $1,000 per day for each day the report is overdue.
The report would have to include an explanation of the litigation and justification of the expenditures.
While he said the legislation is not partisan and would require every attorney general in the future regardless of party to follow the requirements, Woolford claimed that Attorney General Dana Nessel is
treating the agency’s budget like a “political slush fund.”
“She has eagerly gone after private citizens, concerned parents and organizations that dare disagree with her extreme agenda, all while sending the bill to you and I,” Woolford said. “Those that are watching, the Michigan taxpayers, these politically motivated lawsuits aren't about justice. They're about headlines, revenge and scoring points with our political base, and enough is enough.”
He said the bill would give real consequences to ensure good governance, as well as a reminder that “the attorney general works for us.”
Rep. Kelly Breen, D-Novi, said she “vehemently disagreed” with the attacks he made on Nessel, saying he was engaging in partisan attacks by highlighting how Nessel’s office handles litigation.
Woolford countered that Nessel is in office now, so who else is there to blame?
He also went after Breen’s comments on HB 5831, sponsored by Rep. Donni Steele, R-Orion, which was also discussed in committee and would create a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for an act of terrorism.
While Breen questioned if there was research on minimum sentencing being deterrent on crime, Woolford claimed she wouldn’t agree with this legislation because she did not even want to hold terrorists accountable.
The terrorism bill is very similar to SB 502, sponsored by Sen. Sue Shink, D-Northfield Township, which calls for minimum sentencing of 20 years for terrorist threats. The bill was prompted by Nessel.
Breen claimed the only case that would remotely approach the spending limit in Woolford’s bill would be the Flint water prosecution, which did not start under Nessel’s administration. Woolford countered that they don’t know how many lawsuits reach the threshold, and that’s the point of the legislation.
Taxpayers can see how much she is spending in her budget and boilerplate, Breen argued, but Rep. Jay DeBoyer, R-Clay, argued the AG’s budget has not provided enough details.
DeBoyer said the party affiliated with the office doesn’t matter, but transparency around spending does, claiming the office has faced multiple cases spending millions to attempt to prosecute cases that have either been lost or dismissed.
“I think the natural progression of our responsibility is to understand the financial position of the attorney general's office for that matter, and understanding every department,” DeBoyer said. “As you know, sitting on the Oversight Committee, they will not provide us the data when we ask for it, even though state statute says that they're required to. They say, ‘take us to court.’ What a disrespectful perspective for the people of state of Michigan,” DeBoyer said.
One back and forth include how much was spent on the false electors case, a multiple defendant case that went on for years following a group of electors claiming President Donald Trump won Michigan in 2020, recently adjourned following the court’s decision to not bind over the defendants for trial. Woolford claimed no one can point to what the actual dollar amount is.
Breen said the office claims the amount was $3,430.79. If she believed that was the actual cost, Woolford said, he wants Breen to “come with (him) to Arizona because (he’s) got ocean front property” for her.
The committee adopted a technical substitute on the bill for repetitive language but did not take an overall vote on the bill. The terrorism bill was reported on party lines with Democrats abstaining.
The attorney general’s office did not respond to requests for comment on Woolford’s claims or the cost of the false electors case.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
