Conflicted foundation

Just what would it take for J.B. Van Hollen to say he has a conflict of interest in a case? As Van Hollen gets ready to take office next month, the body of evidence gets stronger every week that he should not get involved in the state's case regarding a cranberry grower and yet he continues to insist there is no problem.

The Shepherd Express sums up the problem nicely:

Incoming state attorney general J.B. Van Hollen hasn't taken office yet, and there are already questions concerning a conflict of interest. While on the campaign trail, Republican Van Hollen promised to drop a lawsuit against a cranberry grower, a lawsuit filed by his predecessor, Democrat Peg Lautenschlager. But what Van Hollen didn't say was that he worked for the law firm that represents the defendant, the cranberry grower. Van Hollen also accepted at least $3,500 in donations from cranberry operations, including some from the wife of the grower named in the suit.

No problem even though he has taken campaign cash from the grower's family. What would be the signal that the cranberry growers are too close to Van Hollen then?

When the offices of the Department of Justice have cranberry treats instead of candy? Cranberry drinks at Van Hollen fundraisers? When Van Hollen pulls a Violet Beauregarde and blows up like a cranberry colored balloon?

And where are all those rightie bloggers on this one? A couple of months ago, it seemed the right talked nearly every single day about donations to the governor supposedly yielding results, but not one word on this? I guess some animals are more equal than others.

Even if you set the campaign donations aside, a law firm debating whether or not they should get involved in this case would take a pass because they would have a conflict of interest. Why does Van Hollen think the office of the Attorney General should have a lower set of standards than law firms?

Keep in mind this is a case where the judge said the grower was intentionally polluting the water, but it isn't a full-fledged public nuisance right now. It is developing into one though. Without state involvement in this matter, the pollution was not going to get any better because the grower didn't think he was doing anything wrong. So Van Hollen isn't fighting to dismiss a lawsuit because the grower wasn't abusing resources; he is arguing the state should look the other way while our resources are polluted.

This is the foundation Van Hollen is building his new office on and Wisconsin residents should be wary of the future.