Welcome Guest - Please Login | Subscribe |FAQ's | Why Register | Privacy Statement |
| Classifieds | Jobs | Cars | Real Estate | Directories | Yellow Pages+ | My Clips | 
     
 Today is September 07, 2008 Current Temperature: 72° in Lewiston, Maine 
Take our quiz


Printer Friendly Version      Email Story     Increase Text    Decrease Text
iPod Friendly
  Comments
Former Lewiston rep going to jail

,
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
PHOTO GALLERY
« Previous | Next »
thumbnails | gallery

AUBURN - A former Lewiston state legislator was sentenced Tuesday to six months in jail for spending public campaign money on personal items. It was the longest jail sentence imposed for violation of the Maine Clean Election Act.

William Walcott, 36, formerly of Lewiston and now living in Prentiss, pleaded guilty in Androscoggin County Superior Court to more than a dozen misdemeanor counts, most of them theft charges.

He was expected to start serving his sentence immediately.

The violations stem from misuse of public money during his 2004 and 2006 campaigns for state representative in House District 72. He was serving his third term when he stepped down last year. He later was indicted by an Androscoggin County grand jury.

Walcott also was sentenced to five months for additional misdemeanor counts Tuesday. That sentence was suspended.

He will be given five years to repay the state $3,294 in restitution, starting in December 2009, Justice Joyce Wheeler said. During that time, he will be on so-called "administrative release," a more casual form of probation.

Two felony theft counts were dismissed, along with two misdemeanors charging misuse of entrusted property.

Leanne Robbin, assistant attorney general who serves as chief of financial crimes, said Walcott came clean about his illegal actions and accepted responsibility when he was audited by the state ethics commission.

Walcott commingled public and private money, failed to give back the unused public campaign money he was given and filed false reports detailing how it was spent, Robbin said.

Money intended for use on campaign signs, bumper stickers and buttons was instead spent on videos, pizza, restaurants and other non-campaign items, Robbin said.

Walcott said he had a hard time making ends meet, juggling a low-paying job working with developmentally disabled adults while serving in the Legislature, Robbin said.

Justice Wheeler acknowledged Walcott's public service as she accepted his plea.

"I can well imagine this is not an easy experience for you," she said, in light of his sacrifices.

Walcott's sentence carries the longest jail time to date for violations of the state's law that provides money to candidates for the state Legislature and for gubernatorial races. Until Tuesday, the longest jail time had been two months, Robbin said.

Carol Palesky of Topsham served a 9-month jail sentence, but she violated other statutes relating to elections, but not the Maine Clean Election Act, Robbin said.

"We wanted to send a message to the candidates who are starting out this election season that when they get their check from the commission, it's not their money," Robbin said after the 20-minute hearing.

"And they've got to make sure they separate that from their personal accounts," she said. "If they deposit it in their personal account, that's a crime. If they spend it on personal purposes, it's a crime. And if they don't report accurately as to how they spent that money, that's a crime, too. The message to candidates is they are holding these funds in the public trust and they've got to spend them on campaign purposes."

CLICK HERE To Show/Hide Discussion Thread - (22 Comments)
Comments
Posted By:BRUCE at June 4, 2008 10:02 AM (Suggest Removal)
What good is it going to do to imprison this person? If a person is in prison, how can they repay for their misdoings? He should be made to serve as a non paid member, instead of going to prison.

| Add your comments
Posted By:Sophie at June 4, 2008 10:56 AM (Suggest Removal)
Bruce, I tend to agree with you. However, the longer jail term was a trade off for dropping the felonies to misdemeanors. This way Mr. Walcott has the possibility of gaining employment upon his release, where that would have been considerably more difficult with felony convictions. I think the AG took this into consideration with the charges she filed. He now will be able to pay restitution to the state of Maine. I would NEVER say that what Mr. Walcott did was ok, but as people put this "story" to rest, my hope is that they realize that he lost a job in which he could support himself (because his Supervisor at the time did not like his voting record in the house), leaving Mr. Walcott in a position where he had committments to his constituants, that did not mesh with his ability to keep his head afloat financially. Desperate people do desperate acts, and I think when he has paid his "debt to society" this is something that can be forgiven.

| Add your comments
Posted By:J.D. at June 4, 2008 10:59 AM (Suggest Removal)
The entire article is about a former state Representative's misuse of public campaign money, yet nowhere do we learn what party Walcott was a member of. Pretty sloppy reporting and editing. Or was it deliberate?

| Add your comments
Posted By:Sophie at June 4, 2008 11:05 AM (Suggest Removal)
J.D. what difference does it make what party affiliation he had? He is a single man who made a singular mistake...its not like he needed collaboration from others to do this.

| Add your comments
Posted By:mj at June 4, 2008 12:43 PM (Suggest Removal)
its all about the MONEY!!!

| Add your comments
Posted By:Sally at June 4, 2008 12:48 PM (Suggest Removal)
JD - Democrat...

| Add your comments
Posted By:David Hughes at June 4, 2008 1:18 PM (Suggest Removal)
Serve as an unpaid member? Unpaid member of what? The legislature? You can't be serious. Sophie, it wasn't a singular mistake. He is charged for violations for both 2004 and 2006. That isn't a singular anything. What difference does party affiliation make? I have no idea what difference it makes to the story. I also know, first hand, that for fairness sake along it should have been disclosed.

| Add your comments
Posted By:Independent Voter at June 4, 2008 2:31 PM (Suggest Removal)
When Republicans stray, the Sun-Journal is the first to nail them. In the Walcott caper, the editors are standing on their heads to duck the fact that Walcott was a Democrat hand-raiser. Just sad.

| Add your comments
Posted By:barbara at June 4, 2008 2:34 PM (Suggest Removal)
Had Mr. Walcott been Republican it would have been published in the headline.

| Add your comments
Posted By:Michael at June 4, 2008 4:41 PM (Suggest Removal)
Who the Hell wants this guy doing anything acting in the publics best interest? I wouldn't give the guy a mop job in the VIP room at Platnum Plus.

| Add your comments
Posted By:clifford Drake at June 4, 2008 8:59 PM (Suggest Removal)
good news

| Add your comments
Posted By:Sophie at June 4, 2008 9:46 PM (Suggest Removal)
And David as I recall you also had difficulty repaying campaign monies, maybe not the amount Mr. Walcott did not return but if we are talking about principles, maybe you (as a Republican) should be sitting next to him in jail...or maybe Mr. Walcott should have been smart enough to get married so he had a woman to pay his way out.....I hardly think you are one to talk on this matter without people laughing...or is it the fact that he beat you so soundly without even campaigning? So maybe the majority of people in Lewiston would rather be represented by someone who might do something criminal is desperate circumstances rather than just be a life long leecher of a woman.

| Add your comments
Posted By:David Hughes at June 4, 2008 9:57 PM (Suggest Removal)
Sophie, Walcott came right out and admitted to misspending the campaign money when he finally responded to Ethics. I came out with a money order and the documents that showed I hadn't misspent a dime. If we're going to start tossing people in jail for filing a report late we'd have to open a jail house in the Capital Building. Hmmmm, tell me Sophie, are we to call all those women homemakers "gold diggers" or are you just being sexist? Here I thought the Democrats were the party that empowered women to enjoy a rewarding career and wanted men to actually take part in the raising of children and taking care of the household chores....haven't you noticed the marked increase in men taking care of their children as you go around Lewiston? Dad's doing full-time child care duties. Isn't that a good thing? Dont' we want kids to grow up in 2 parent households with the dads taking an active part in the child care? Shouldn't we be supporting dads and not endeavoring to maintain the social stigma associated with men doing so-called "woman's work". We build strong communities on the foundation of strong families - whatever form those families may take. You should be ashamed of yourself Sophie for making a personal attack that continues to social stigmatization of dad's being more involved.

| Add your comments
Posted By:Sophie at June 4, 2008 10:07 PM (Suggest Removal)
You have got to be kidding! First of all they contacted you several times about repayment of money, Walcott responded to the Ethics Commission, before the date they said he needed to. I dont care one ounce whether he is a Republican or Democrat, and if less people did not care there may be more unity in both state and federal government. As for the Sun Journal...they are a Liberal Newspaper, and I am sure there are as many conservative ones...and NO I am not a sexist...this is the point I was trying to guide you to...You know NOTHING of the circumstances around this issue or Mr Walcott as a man, I was merely pointing out that it is not helpful to make assumptions about people and their lives...He did something that was wrong, he is paying a price for that, as he should, but for people to assume that one bad deed whipes out a life time of good ones is unfair and far from justice. He was wrong....but as usual people do not want to see the larger picture, they want to attack. They do not want to see that he stood for Lewiston and actually was fired by Representative Lerman for doing so, (Lerman was a one issue politician and was only interested in what he could do for people with disabilities, Mr. Walcott represented the best interests of all of his constituants, and was fired from his job for not voting with Lerman) Then he was promised by high party officials if he ran again, they would assist him in finding a job in which he could support himself and maintain his seat in Augusta, but after the election he was left hung out to dry...yes by Democrats, who refused to take his plight seriously...There are a lot of wrongs in all of this, his was just the worng that people hang their hat on.

| Add your comments
Posted By:horsefeathers at June 4, 2008 10:45 PM (Suggest Removal)
Sophia did you represent him in court? Seems like you have done a case study of both men...of violations of how many years? Until the time comes that the clean elections watchdogs check every candidate (or get a tip from a stool pigeon) one will really not know just how much of this bs goes on with taxpayer money. It is a good idea gone bad and needs to be fine tuned or dropped entirely.

| Add your comments
Posted By:Kelly at June 4, 2008 10:46 PM (Suggest Removal)
No David, Sophie would rather live off welfare and have her random "sperm donors" pay a lifetime of child support as penance for one night of drunkenness.

| Add your comments
Posted By:David Hughes at June 4, 2008 11:02 PM (Suggest Removal)
Sophie, they contacted Walcott several times as well. I responded to Ethics before the date I had to as well. I'm not sure I follow your thinking in how you making a personal attack can be leading me, or anyone else, anywhere. Nice that you backtrack from it though and I'll take it as my own grave failing for not seeing that you didn't make a personal attack by the gross insinuation that I'm just a "life long leecher of woman." Surely I must have taken that completely wrong. *rolls eyes* It might surprise you that I've actually defended Will in republican circles. I don't agree with Walcott's politics often but he had his beliefs and he stuck to them. I'll take an honest politician on the other side, no matter how wrong I think they are, over a two faced backstabber you can't make a compromise with. Kind of like the choices among the real democrats we have in the senate race. My original comments stand. How BRUCE can suggest that Walcott just serve in the legislature is completely beyond me. How you can suggest that it was a singular mistake when Walcott is charged for violations going back to 2004 is also beyond me. How questioning the LSJ for not including his party affiliation when there is very recent history with me where they went out of their way to include that information is a wholly appropriate question. You're the one who went of the reservation with the personal attacks. If you can explain how it makes sense to have someone who betrayed the public trust to serve the public trust as punishment I'm open to listening. If you can explain how multiple violations over multiple election cycles is a "singular event" I'm all ears. If you think it's ok to give a paper a free pass on outright bias I'd love to hear that explanation as well. I'll go back to taking heat from Republicans over saying that Will can get back into the legislature in the future after he has paid his debt.

| Add your comments
Posted By:Sophie at June 4, 2008 11:07 PM (Suggest Removal)
lol...another person talking out their ass

| Add your comments
Posted By:Sophie at June 4, 2008 11:13 PM (Suggest Removal)
Kelly (or is it Arthur from Florida), you too are lucky the Board of Directors only fired you rather than charging you criminally.

| Add your comments
Posted By:David Hughes at June 4, 2008 11:15 PM (Suggest Removal)
from the article "Money intended for use on campaign signs, bumper stickers and buttons was instead spent on videos, pizza, restaurants and other non-campaign items, Robbin said." He spent it on extras. Extras that many families are doing without and you paint him as some kind of victimized saint. Victimized, maybe but by his own party. Saint, no.

| Add your comments
Posted By:Sophie at June 4, 2008 11:25 PM (Suggest Removal)
Please understand...I have never thought what he did was right or even expainable...and I do not think he was or is a victim. I think that shit happens, and I am not sure why any of us feel the need to rehash it here when NONE of us have all the facts. He is paying his debt, he has been publically humiliated, but to have people say he could not even mop the floor of platnum plus is out of bounds in logical thinking...I think about Obama's speech on race and think there is hope for politics to come out of the darkness, and then there is this crap about was he a republican or a democrat? And people have the right to know...first of all people who are about politics already know he is a democrat, and for people to feel compelled to name him a democrat for this purpose is a call to undermine the democratic party based on one persons actions. As far as singular mistake, it was a singular mistake although it was repeated. The thought and intent through it all was the same I imagine...this was more along the lines of what I meant. As far as letting a newspaper off the hook...well this is the way I look at it...if you do not think the Sun Journal is a fair representation of the news, stop buying it, if enough people feel the way you do then they will be out of business anyway. ALL Papers have their bias. As far as me thinking he is a Saint...I think NOT. My guess is this...he is a reasonably decent person, who did a bad thing, it happens everywhere, both sides of the aisle and in all walks of life. Truthfully I do not care what he spent the money on,it would have been just as wrong to me if he had spent it on heating fuel, or rent, or whatever...I have been cold, hungry and in financial dire straights, but have never stooped to taking what was not mine to take. So pizza, videos makes no difference to me. As far as him running for office, lol he wanted to get out of it in 2004, and came inches from not running in 2006, so I seriously doubt he has any desire to go back, that is just a guess though. I apologize for the personal attack, that was wrong.

| Add your comments
Posted By:David Hughes at June 5, 2008 12:00 AM (Suggest Removal)
Sophie, while I don't think anything you say at this point will make me understand why you choose to attack me over the people doing what you list as the reasons for your ire, I'll still accept the apology. Thank-you. You point out exactly why the issue of his party affiliation is something that should not be overlooked - it undermines the party rather than reflects on the individual and the LSJ has shown itself to be more than willing to do that for republicans. My contention is not that Walcott needed to be labeled a democrat but that the LSJ should give equal treatment to either party. Fairness, in all things, is something we should strive for. In looking over political stories from this year about Maine politicians/candidates printed in the LSJ I find one story, my own, where they named the party affiliation. I find another story where the party affiliation was made obvious by labeling the party affiliation of the guys opponent. I find one story where a Republican wasn't tagged and then this one where a Democrat wasn't tagged. You tell me what it means but it certainly isn't consistent treatment and the two stories where party affiliation ( republican only ) were made known were two stories where damage to the party image isn't an unreasonable assumption. The paper should have a consistent standard on this specific issue because it is blatant bias, not because it would remove bias. I think Will is a decent guy overall who made a horrid choice and he is rightly being punished for it. He should get time off for good behavior meaning he'll end up serving about 3 1/2 months. I think that is fair, you may not. If it were me having made a similar choice I would expect exactly the same thing. I accept that my late filing was wrong. I never tried to excuse it, get out from being penalized for it or to justify it. Ethics was very understanding and sensitive to the situation and for that I am grateful. Still irritates me that the LSJ called into questions Ethics' impartiality and lack of partisanship. More so than the party labeling thing.

| Add your comments
Advertisement
John R. Hatzenbuehler, M.D.
a sports medicine specialist, has been named to the Central Maine Medical Center Medical Staff. He is practicing with Central Maine Sports Medicine in Lewiston.
read more >>
CMHVI Launching Chapter of Mended Hearts
a national non-profit organization that supports heart disease patients and their families through a visiting program and monthly meetings.
read more >>
“Cholesterol and Cardiac Scoring"
is the topic of a Central Maine Heart and Vascular Institute presentation set for September 15 at a Lewiston restaurant.
read more >>
Cancer Education Series in Rumford
“Holistic Approaches to Wellness for Cancer Patients, Survivors and Caregivers” is the subject of a six-part series being presented by The Patrick Dempsey Center for Cancer Hope and Healing in Rumford beginning September 4.
read more >>
Cancer Education Series in Bridgton
“Holistic Approaches to Wellness for Cancer Patients, Survivors and Caregivers” is the subject of a six-part series being presented by The Patrick Dempsey Center for Cancer Hope and Healing in Bridgton beginning September 9.
read more >>
Contents of this site © 2008 Sun Journal
| Forgot Password |Blog Policy | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Advertise With Us | Contact Us | About Us | Faq's | Help |