What happens if an alderman, convicted of using campaign funds for personal use, tries to make restitution to those political contributors, but they don’t want their money back?

That appears to be what is happening in the case of former Milwaukee Alderman Jeff Pawlinski, who was sentenced August 15 to eight months in jail for defrauding political supporters by using more than $39,000 raised during campaign fund-raisers for his personal use.

During Pawlinski’s sentencing hearing, U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic revealed that about 50 percent of the first contributors contacted by federal officials to set up the restitution had declined the return of any of the funds they had contributed.

Biskupic declined to reveal the names of those contributors who had been contacted. The results would be filed with the federal court after all of the hundreds of contributors, who include businessmen, lobbyists and residents and other elected officials, are contacted.

“There could be some leftover money in this case,” Biskupic told Federal Court Judge Charles Clevert. “Under no condition should he (Pawlinski) get any of it back.”

One Pawlinski contributor, who asked not to be identified, said the contributions were made with the expectation they would never be returned.

“You make the contribution to get access to the political official and that’s what I got,” the contributor said. “I was never planning to get the money back and it just isn’t worth the paperwork or the headache.” And while everyone in court agreed that Pawlinski could not personally get any leftover funds, Stephen Glynn, Pawlinski’s defense attorney, suggested that any remaining funds could be returned to Pawlinski’s campaign fund, where they could be distributed at his choice to a number of different entities, including charities and other political campaigns.

“Mr. Pawlinski does not believe that he personally is entitled to any funds,” Glynn said. “It was not, is not and will not be his money. But at the end of the day, if there are any dollars left, we would need to discuss that matter at that time.”

Glynn said a lot of Pawlinski’s contributors believe they got what they gave the money for – “an honest alderman who did good things for his district.”

“A lot of people to this day think this was his money to use,” Glynn said. “This is not taxpayer money. It is not public funds or grant funds.”

Pawlinski, who court officials said has been unemployed since he resigned from the Common Council in May, was able to raise the funds needed for restitution by securing about $29,000 in loans from family and friends and cashing in his deferred compensation account with the City of Milwaukee, for which he received about $13,000.

Biskupic suggested any remaining funds be given to the contributors who did want their money back or contributed to the federal fund for victims of violent crime.

Clevert set a 60-day period for additional contributors to come forward. At that time, he will decide what to do with the extra funds. That would be about 30 days after Pawlinski starts his eight-month sentence, which is likely to be served at the Oxford Prison in Wisconsin. He was also sentenced to two months home detention and two years probation.

Pawlinski reached a plea agreement in May under which he plead guilty to one count of mail fraud and in exchange federal prosecutors dropped the two remaining charges of mail fraud.

In calling for the eight-month prison sentence, Biskupic said Pawlinski had turned his campaign account into his own personal checking account by taking 72 percent of the contributions made to him over a three-year period. Many of the funds never even made it to Pawlinski’s campaign account, Biskupic said, citing two $300 contributions he received on March 19, 2002 that he turned around and spent on himself.

“This was not a campaign account, it was Jeff Pawlinski’s (personal) account,” Biskupic said. “This was not where he took money for an isolated dinner. It was a systematic use of political funds to live on.”

Pawlinski was apologetic and remorseful when he got a chance to address Clevert, pledging that “it would be the last time you would ever see me” in a courtroom.

He said he took the funds because he was experiencing serious financial problems, especially after his recent divorce.

“I know I have disappointed a lot of people and I have to live with that,” he said. “I had access to the money and I used them for daily living expenses such as rent and day-care bills. I’m well aware that my legacy is going to be this day. My goal is not to make it the defining moment of my life.

“This is the last page of the last chapter of this part of my life story.”

[back to top]