Subject: Steve Sebelius sets the record straight on Washington GOP's lies about Cortez Masto
From: Zach Hudson <[email-masked]>
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 08:05:30 -0700

http://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/columns-blogs/steve-sebelius/no-cozy-relationship-settlement-case-ag-catherine-cortez-masto

Posted date May 10, 2016 - 9:00pm
No ‘cozy relationship’ in settlement case — AG Catherine Cortez Masto did
her job
By STEVE SEBELIUS
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL

Anybody who’s ever been to a courthouse knows its possible to arrange
perfectly true facts to lead a jury to a false conclusion.

It’s no different in the court of public opinion.

Take two recent ads from the Koch brothers-backed Freedom Partners Action
Fund PAC targeting Democratic former Attorney General Catherine Cortez
Masto, who’s now running for Senate.

The ads allege she hired a well-connected Washington, D.C., law firm to sue
Bank of America during the foreclosure crisis. The firm earned millions in
fees. Partners in the firm later gave Cortez Masto campaign contributions.

Therefore, *corruption!*

But wait, there’s more.

After the recession inspired a tsunami of foreclosures across the country,
Cortez Matso and her colleagues sought to hold banks accountable for
damages related to the crisis. Shorthanded and seeking expertise in complex
litigation, she sought bids from outside counsel, and ultimately
recommended the firm Cohen Milstein for the job. (According to the New York
Times, that firm pitched its services to states. Cortez Masto had no
relationship with the firm before seeking bids.)

The state Board of Examiners — headed by Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval —
approved a contingency contract, which meant the firm could earn money only
if it won settlements. But it did: Cohen Milstein secured a $38 million
settlement from Bank of America, earning $5.6 million in fees. The
settlement was later praised by Republican state officials including U.S.
Sen. Dean Heller and Rep. Joe Heck, who’s now running against Cortez Masto
for the Senate.

But not everyone was happy: The Wall Street Journal in 2013 slammed
Nevada’s outside attorneys, and the concept of engaging outside counsel in
general. (That editorial — which incorrectly says Nevada law prohibits the
hiring of outside counsel — forms the basis for some of the Freedom
Partners attacks on Cortez Masto. In fact, Republican and Democratic
attorneys general alike have hired outside lawyers to handle big cases.)

Later, after Cortez Masto was successfully re-elected to her second and
final term, six partners at Cohen Milstein donated to her campaign
accounts. Their collective contributions — ranging from $250 to $750 each —
totaled $2,650. According to Cortez Masto’s final campaign fundraising
report from the 2010 election cycle, she raised a total of $459,315. The
Cohen Milstein contributions total slightly more than one-half of 1 percent
of that total. The firm also contributed to the Democratic Attorneys
General Association.

Viewers are supposed to connect the two things — the firm’s hiring and the
contributions — as proof of a quid pro quo. But that’s an insinuation, one
for which there’s no actual proof. Should we conclude there’s corruption in
current Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt’s hiring of a Washington, D.C.,
firm to defend Nevada’s new Education Savings Account program in 2015 after
two partners donated to his 2014 election? Or is it more likely Laxalt
hired the firm because it employed Paul Clement, an experienced former
solicitor general with a history of successful Supreme Court arguments?

So, while it’s true Cortez Masto recommended the hiring of a law firm that
earned money representing the state and whose partners later contributed to
her campaign, it’s also true the firm successfully forced one of the
largest banks in the country to pay the state millions to compensate for
alleged wrongdoing.

That sounds much more like Cortez Masto doing her job than cozying up to a
Washington special interest for personal profit. In fact, you’d have to
very carefully arrange the facts to lead people to that conclusion.

That’s why you always have to wait until you’ve heard the entire story, in
court and out.