That would be “progressive” Washtenaw Co. Prosecuting Attorney Eli Savit, who is expected to be the Democrats’ nominee for state Attorney General.
Shortly after taking office in 2021, Savit eliminated the cash bail system in Washtenaw County. He also announced his office would no longer prosecute consensual commercial sex work or possess small amounts of marijuana and hallucinogenic mushrooms.
He’s even received pushback from the left — Ann Arbor activists have criticized Savit’s drug policies for not going far enough, arguing that, even though he decriminalized substances predominantly used by white populations (like psychedelics), he’s continued to prosecute drugs like cocaine that disproportionately impact Black communities. There’s also been a federal whistleblower lawsuit filed by his own chief of criminal prosecutions as well as conflict-of-interest accusations stemming from a high-profile township prosecution.
Then there is the complaint against him that just won’t go away — that he’s campaigned for A.G. on the taxpayers’ dime. This complaint was filed in May by retired attorney Bob LaBrant, who has become the equal opportunity scourge of all public officials and candidates who LaBrant believes have violated campaign finance laws and rules.
The challenge for Benson is that her Department of State will have to rule before the election on whether LaBrant’s complaint against Savit is valid. This will be a politically sensitive decision by Benson’s agency when it issues its determination finding that there is, or is not, “reason to believe a violation of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA) occurred.”
Then Savit chose to run for Attorney General, this year. The Department of State will now have to decide if Savit can continue to use that county car and a county credit card to pay for its fuel as he campaigns for Attorney General, which is a state office. In addition, has Savit’s prior use of these public resources violated Section 57 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA)?
Section 57 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act (MCFA) prohibits public bodies such as state agencies, counties, cities, townships, and school districts from using public resources to support candidates or ballot questions. That prohibition specifically includes the use of a public body’s vehicle for political purposes.
Savit, in response to that media investigation, announced he would reimburse Washtenaw County for the credit card charges he incurred dating back to when he first announced his candidacy for Attorney General on May 13, 2025.
Then the news media apparently decided “end of story” and went to sleep.
They shouldn’t have.
There is a legal term for an unpaid bill, or delayed reimbursement. It is called “forbearance.” That term is included in the definition of “contribution” found in the MCFA. The amount of the forbearance becomes an in-kind contribution by Washtenaw County to Eli Savit’s AG campaign. That violates Section 57.
To calculate reimbursement for use of the vehicle requires determining how many miles were added to the county vehicle’s odometer during those campaign trips. Then reimbursement can be calculated looking at comparable car rental charges, IRS mileage allowances, or annual auto leases. That calculation could end up being significantly larger than the gasoline credit card charges that Savit incurred.
The campaign finance complaint filed by LaBrant is being handled by the Regulatory Division in the Bureau of Elections in Jocelyn Benson’s Department of State.
A determination as to whether there is “reason to believe a violation of the MCFA occurred“ is required 45 business days after the filing of the complainant’s rebuttal and must be posted on the Department’s website. That deadline is next month, on July 24, less than two weeks before the August 4 primary in advance of the Nov. 3 general election.
Why this is funny is because Jocelyn Benson herself had been cited for violating MCL 167.257 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act for delivering a campaign speech from a government office.
Previously, Mike Murray of Murray Communications filed a similar complaint against a 46th District Court judge that was upheld. A Washtenaw Circuit Court judge who is no longer on the bench was also cited for deploying court resources for campaign purposes.
The bottom line here is where there is a “grey area” an elected official should not cross into it as Eli Savit did. LaBrant’s complaint was a reasonable and welcome response to perceived violations that should not be occurring.
One point a Washtenaw County court – a district court – had staff employees run up over $6,000 in donut shop purchases on a court credit card. The court claimed it was a perk of the job – others were outraged. The fact that a county policy allows him to use county property for personal or campaign purposes is likewise despicable.
Nimesh Ganatra, the longtime chief assistant to Eli Savit, has been hired by Dana Nessel’s AG office. He is suing Savit via whistleblower retaliation allegations. Savit also.has been criticized for accepting campaign contributions by the those vendors seeking decriminalization and legalization of psychedelic substances – a conflict of interest.
The Doug Lloyd campaign and MIGOP will have a field day in dissecting all the questionable policies and behavior of Eli Savit.
That should have been MCL 169.257 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act – not 167.
Also known as “Section 57” – unlawful dedication of government resources for campaign purposes.
Looking forward to Ms. Benson getting an invitation from the U.S. House Judiciary Committee so she can proclaim her Fifth Amendment rights, just like SPLC Interim President Bryan Fair did back on the 9th.
The campaign ads write themselves.
Or Ms Wallace-Jones of ActBlue who took the Fifth when asked by a member of the Committee if she preferred to be called Ms Wallace-Jones or Ms Jones. Not quite sure how that would incriminate her unless she is engaging in some kind of identity theft, but it was not a good look.
That is taken straight from the 1978 film F.I.S.T., when Kevin Conway, playing a union organizer, is questioned by Rod Steiger, portraying a U.S. Senator, and asserts the Fifth Amendment to a question regarding his name.
Steiger tells Conway:
“It must have been very hard to proceed in life having a name that may intend to incriminate you.”
Nice article, Bill. And an intriguing title question.
Of the many problems that Mr. Savit poses, you’ve hit on them. Let me add some of my comments on them, in nor particular order.
You write: “NEWLY ELECTED COUNTY PROSECUTOR SAVIT AGREED TO A COMPENSATION PACKAGE THAT ALLOWED HIM THE UNLIMITED USE OF A COUNTY-OWNED CAR AND USE OF A COUNTY CREDIT CARD TO PAY FOR ITS FUEL.” How, pray tell, does he negotiate what appears to be a new compensation package for himself AFTER election? Usually, an elective office already has a pay package as part of the job. What did he threaten? He’d resign? This says a lot more about the caliber of the Washtenaw County Commission than it does Mr. Savit, unless they were in cahoots with one another. The lack of media curiosity on this issue is quite troubling. I am not sure if it is partisan in nature (they’re on his side), a simple lack of curiosity (what, me read a court decision?), or an appalling lack of institutional memory (you mean I really have to do research). On the whole, when it comes down to the elective office that he holds, it seems to indicate that Mr. Savit has a fondness for the Bachman Turner Overdrive tune “Looking Out for Number One”.
Not being a lawyer, I assume that Mr. LaBrant’s interpretation is correct and that he is basing that on a 2011 state Supreme Court decision that you cited. That Court is gone and the current members of the Court are six Democrats and one Republican. The real question is whether the CJ and the other Democrats want Mr. Savit gone and replaced (probably with Karen McDonald). But the Court will have to get started on this pretty quickly.
You write: “THEN THERE IS THE COMPLAINT AGAINST HIM THAT JUST WON’T GO AWAY – THAT HE’S CAMPAIGNED FOR A.G. ON THE TAXPAYERS’ DIME. THIS COMPLAINT WAS FILED IN MAY BY RETIRED ATTORNEY BOB LABRANT, WHO HAS BECOME THE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY SCOURGE OF ALL PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND CANDIDATES WHO LABRANT BELIEVES HAVE VIOLATED CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS AND RULES.
THE CHALLENGE FOR BENSON IS THAT HER DEPARTMENT OF STATE WILL HAVE TO RULE BEFORE THE ELECTION ON WHETHER LABRANT’S COMPLAINT AGAINST SAVIT IS VALID. THIS WILL BE A POLITICALLY SENSITIVE DECISION BY BENSON’S AGENCY WHEN IT ISSUES ITS DETERMINATION FINDING THAT THERE IS, OR IS NOT, “REASON TO BELIEVE A VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE ACT (MCFA) OCCURRED.” “Politically sensitive”, ya think? Ah, it seems that Ms Benson will have to do her job. The horrors! The real fun will begin if she finds him in violation. Is he removed from the ballot? Does Karen McDonald marshal political forces to remove him? Or does he turn into a less toxic Michigan version of Graham Platner. Now I am not sure how long the SOS can play rope-a-dope on this issue beyond the July 24 deadline (I am sure they will try). A lot depends on whathe Bureau of Elections head, Jonathan Brater, is the scion of a former Democratic state rep from Ann Arbor, does. Will he recuse himself? If not, will a favorable decision for Mr. Savit be suspect? Of course, they could always pass it off to Dana Nessel due to conflicts within the Bureau of Elections and let her run out the clock. If that happens, what will the media response be? We can be pretty sure that Charlie LeDuff will cover it, but the other TV stations? The newspapers? Not likely.
You write: “SHORTLY AFTER TAKING OFFICE IN 2021, SAVIT ELIMINATED THE CASH BAIL SYSTEM IN WASHTENAW COUNTY. HE ALSO ANNOUNCED HIS OFFICE WOULD NO LONGER PROSECUTE CONSENSUAL COMMERCIAL SEX WORK OR POSSESS SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIJUANA AND HALLUCINOGENIC MUSHROOMS.” A county prosecutor who refuses to enforce laws he personally dislikes. Great qualification! A living, breathing, “Get Out of Jail Free” card in the AG’s office. What could go wrong?
Savit could make an argument on the cash bail, though if he applied it to those accused of violent felonies, that could come back to bite him in the butt. But refusing to prosecute prostitution? Obviously, he feels that whoring out one’s body is not demeaning to women. But refusing to enforce laws he does not like might be reflected in his use of the county car and credit card. An odd position for a candidate for the state Attorney General to take – I will only enforce laws I like, not what’s on the books. More fodder for the GOP nominee, Doug Lloyd’s campaign. Or not. Mainers seem to like running Graham Platner, Nazi tattoo and alleged photos of his private parts sent to unwilling females for the US Senate. Virginians elected Jay Jones as attorney general who so hated the GOP Speaker of the Virginia House when he was in the House that he said he would shoot him instead of shooting Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. And he wished the children of that Speaker were killed to make political points. Mr. Savit probably hopes that Michiganders are that lenient. Or corrupt. At any rate, more fodder for TBR readers!
Savit and Benson are above the law. Flaunting their misbehavior like a badge of honor and sneering at the rules. Voters know what to do.
If Eli Savit is elected he will surely be the most left-wing Michigan Attorney General in history. And likely in U.S. history as far as state attorneys general go
He certainly ranks up there with San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin and Philadelphia’s Larry Krasner as one of the most “progressive” prosecutorial officials in American jurisprudential history.
Savit could pull it off if he rides the coattails of Benson this November in a possible “Blue Wave” election cycle some are predicting – however projected GOP nominee Doug Lloyd’s campaign will certainly beg to disagree.
The New York Post has figured out that Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) “Employee-2” in the federal superseding indictment is Heidi Beirich, their director of intelligence between 2012 and 2019. She was screwing informant F-9, a National Alliance Nazi, and deposited $ 140,000 into their joint bank account during this period.
Jocelyn Benson was a director of the Southern Poverty Law Center from 2014 to 2019. She had been a “reporter” for SPLC from the time she graduated from Wellesley College in 1999, until her SPLC board appointment.
This story does not burnish Ms. Benson’s management credentials, nor does it suggest any particular degree of perspicacity on her part. Certainly not enough to be the governor of a state as large and complex as Michigan.
The DOJ indictment is legally questionable.
Paying informants was part of its investigations into white supremacy groups.
This is really a stretch as to the legal theory of “defrauding” donors.
The Trump administration has already lost flimsy cases against the former NY State AG and the former FBI director.
The informant tactics of the SPLC were questionable as far as good operating practices – but federal crimes? Maybe not.
The issue here would be that the SPLC person was banging a neo-Nazi and a bunch of money went to them personally. Now if the SPLC wants to sue Ms Beirich or try to get her charged with some type of embezzlement I do not know.
Whether the DOJ prevails or not may very well depend on who the judge is. The story itself is more than a bit tawdry and should at least give pause to those who would like to fund the SPLC. Financial shenanigans have had an impact on BLM.
“The DOJ indictment is legally questionable.
Paying informants was part of its investigations into white supremacy groups.”
You might want to get a better lawyer’s advice. Either income tax liability or gift tax liability attaches to all of these SPLC payments, which were clearly made to foster the Klan and Nazi groups. No taxes were paid on these sums. SPLC is not authorized under federal or state laws to provide dispensation from tax liabilities.
In the specific case of informant F-9, he was paid $ 1.2 million by Ms. Beirich to resuscitate the (neo Nazi) National Alliance, which was almost defunct in 2014 from infighting. $ 140,000 of the $ 1.2 million wound up in a bank account shared by Beirich and her squeeze, F-9. This was a skimming operation. No taxes were paid. All the while, the snakes at SPLC were entertaining their brain dead donors with tales that the SPLC was fighting far right extremism.
You should refresh your memory of how the Feds put Alfonso Capone in the slam. These tax cases are open and shut. The money trails are even easier to document today than they were in 1931. No jury, left or right, is going to annul this case.
The Southern Poverty Legal Center founded by Morris Dees has been highly respected and was responsible for legal action against the KKK national organization that seriously damaged its operations.
It would not surprise me if a respected Dem leader such as Jocelyn Benson would have not associated with it an become a board member.
The law enforcement community has relied upon the SPLC for training and intelligence.
In the absence of any proof – e.g. board minutes – that would disclose that Jocelyn Benson was aware of these alleged shenanigans to evade taxes or to authorize payments to questionable informants, this “scandal” should not be mentioned in conjunction with her name.
“In the absence of any proof – e.g. board minutes – that would disclose that Jocelyn Benson was aware of these alleged shenanigans to evade taxes or to authorize payments to questionable informants, this “scandal” should not be mentioned in conjunction with her name.”
The SPLC is a criminal organization which set up Charlie Kirk’s murder. SPLC’s May 2025 report ‘The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024’ has an entire section titled ‘Turning Point USA: A case study of the hard right in 2024.’ They have been using their “Hate Maps” to intimidate conservatives and all the others who disagree with Dees.
SPLC has a $ 700 million endowment raised from their brain dead donors. At least $ 30 million of that is parked in shadowy Cayman Islands “banks”. But they still raise lots of money and a good deal of it leaks off their books.
Directors of a nonprofit have three primary legal duties, known as the “duty of care,” “duty of loyalty,” and “duty of obedience.”:
1. Duty of Care: Take care of the nonprofit by ensuring prudent use of all assets, including facility, people, and good will;
2. Duty of Loyalty: Ensure that the nonprofit’s activities and transactions are, first and foremost, advancing its mission; Recognize and disclose conflicts of interest; Make decisions that are in the best interest of the nonprofit corporation; not in the best interest of the individual board member (or any other individual or for-profit entity).
2. Duty of Obedience: Ensure that the nonprofit obeys applicable laws and regulations; follows its own bylaws; and that the nonprofit adheres to its stated corporate purposes/mission.
Benson failed all three duties at SPLC.
The problem that has developed with the Democrats over the last half century is they all want to be judged on appearances and feelings, not actual performance. This has created the miasma of fraud which has throttled government performance at all levels. The Democrats just plain don’t care about fraud and abuse committed in the furtherance of their goals.
Bob LaBrant should be lauded for his time ,effort, and tenacity to hold individuals accountable who violate the MCFA .
Benson will belay any decision until after the August Primary !
Karen McDonald is a frighting altenative.
Agreed.
Everyone should applaud strict enforcement of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.