Greensboro News & Record: Prosecutor seeks review of NC House Speaker Tim Moore’s legal work
Another example of House Speaker Tim Moore’s blatant corruption. With veto-proof supermajorities in both legislative chambers (at least for now), Speaker Moore has repeatedly used his influence to obtain personal benefits for him and his cronies. Here’s a quick recap of the allegations against Moore so far:
- Corrupt chicken farm deal: Bought an abandoned chicken processing plant for $85,000 in 2013 and sold it in 2016 for $550,000 (a $465,000 profit) after using his influence to prevent DEQ from taking pollution enforcement action against the site.
- Blatant nepotism: Secured a $90,000 state job for his girlfriend, for which no other applicants were considered — a clear violation of state hiring laws.
- Kickbacks on Durham development deal: Took $40,000 in legal fees and nearly $70,000 in campaign donations from a Durham developer in exchange for passing special legislation benefiting the developer. Now under SBI investigation for the corrupt deal.
Speaker Moore has repeatedly used his office for personal gain, even as he passes law after law making things worse for working families. Is it any wonder that Moore is pushing a constitutional amendment that would make it harder for the State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement to go after corrupt politicians?
A North Carolina prosecutor has asked investigators to look into concerns about legal work performed by one of the legislature’s top leaders, but House Speaker Tim Moore says he has never mixed that work with his lawmaking duties.
The News & Observer reports that Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman asked the State Bureau of Investigation to look into Moore’s work for developer Neal Hunter’s pharmaceutical company. Previously, Moore’s legislation had rescued a Durham project involving Hunter. Freeman also asked the SBI to investigate Moore’s private legal work preceding legislation involving bail agents. The inquiry isn’t a criminal investigation, she said.
“Certainly, the allegations in both of these (cases), if they bear out to be true, seem to suggest a pattern of the use of public position for personal gain,” Freeman said.