Potts vs. Tate vs. Obenshain vs. Martin.
I witnessed a strange exchange today during the Senate Privileges & Elections (or “P&E,” as the cool kids call it) meeting. Perhaps you’ll understand it better than I do.
SBE Campaign Finance Administrator Chris Piper was answering questions from the committee about SB 141, a bill on which he and the State Board of Elections have worked really hard for many moons. SB 141 is a major overhaul of the language used in state campaign finance law. It doesn’t change anything in terms of policy, it only clarifies the language and updates the law to reflect the current interpretation of practices. Both Chris and the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jay O’Brien (R-Clifton), made this very clear in their introduction.
Inevitably, some of the members of P&E didn’t get this, and several proceeded to complain about past slights, real or perceived, imposed upon them by a past opponent and, by proxy, the SBE in failing to summarily execute said opponent. Each wanted to know why the bill didn’t solve this problem and to each it was explained that this bill only clarifies existing law. I zoned out at this point.
I was jerked to attention when Sen. Stephen Martin (R-Chesterfield), the committee chair, loudly declared that a remark was “totally out of line” and, a few seconds later, made another loud declaration (“enough!” perhaps?). I rewound my mental TiVo, but found it wanting.
It seems erstwhile gubenatorial candidate Sen. Russ Potts (R-Winchester) was grumbling about a past opponent (Mark Tate, I believe) having received some $80,000 by having it funneled through a 527, in the manner of Attorney General Bob McDonnell. This accusation upset Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg), and it was when he began to respond that Sen. Martin made his exclamation.
Again, I wasn’t paying attention — I’m totally unclear on the details.
Is there any reason to think that Mr. Tate received illegal or questionably-legal contributions in his 2003 nomination challenge to Sen. Potts? And why was Sen. Obenshain so immediately defensively of Mr. Tate? And what did he say that so angered the committee chair?
I’d expect this kind of an exchange in the House, but the Senate? It’s not known for this sort of thing. Plus, all four characters in this little drama are Republicans. I wonder if there’s some kind of underlying tension among Republicans in the Senate, or if this is just a weird, unrelated spat.
Anyhow, maybe this will mean something to somebody else. I’m just left scratching my head.
14 Comments