{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://web.archive.org/web/20141024000304/http://walberg.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398483", "Forbes: Federal Forfeiture Program: What's It Funding?", "2014-10-22", "2014", "2014-10", "Republican", "House", "MI", "Tim Walberg", "W000798", "web.archive.org", null, null, "legacy", "Cops are increasingly looking and acting more like soldiers. How are they paying for all this militarized equipment? One source of funding is particularly disconcerting for Americans\u2019 constitutional rights: equitable sharing.\nUnder this federal forfeiture program, local and state law enforcement can seize\u2014and keep\u2014cash, cars and other property they suspect have links to crime. Yet the taken property overwhelmingly came from people who have done nothing wrong. According to a new investigation by\u00a0The Washington Post, the government never charged property owners with a crime in 81 percent of equitable sharing cases. Since 2008, 5,400 police departments and task forces have spent $2.5 billion in federally forfeited property.\nThese off-budget funds are a driving force behind the militarization of America\u2019s police forces, giving rise to \u201cwarrior cops.\u201d \u00a0A Georgia town of 8,000 people spent nearly $80,000 on weapons and protective gear, including 27 M-4 rifles. Another department in Georgia purchased an eight-ton BearCat armored personnel carrier for $227,000. Police in Prince George\u2019s County, Md. obtained a \u201cmobile command bus\u201d worth $1.2 million. Nationwide, police have spent over\u00a0$175 millionin equitable sharing funds on weaponry.\nWhile these procurements are helping transform Officer Friendly into G.I. Joe, other police purchases uncovered by the\u00a0Post\u00a0were more lavish. Or just plain ridiculous. To paint kids\u2019 faces at an Easter party, police in Reminderville, Ohio hired \u201cSparkles the Clown\u201d for $225. One Texas sheriff\u2019s department spent $637 on a coffee maker, and over $5,000 on \u201cbanquets, luncheons and fundraisers\u201d and expenses for the \u201cSmokin Pigs Cooking Team.\u201d The Sheriff\u2019s Office in Mesa County, Colo.\u00a0paid over $8,400\u00a0to send 20 lawyers to a conference at a ski resort in 2009. Agencies around the country have bought dozens of \u201cnew and used sports and luxury cars, including at least 15 Mercedes, a dozen Mustangs, a handful of BMWs and two Corvettes.\u201d\nOther police and prosecutors have infamously\u00a0used forfeiture funds\u00a0to buy Hawaiian vacations and a margarita machine. Or as John Oliver put it, \u201cThey were literally using this money as their own personal slush fund.\u201d\nMeanwhile, more altruistic causes are getting short shrift. Less than one percent of all equitable sharing funds, or about\u00a0$20 million, has funded \u201ccommunity-based programs.\u201d According to the Justice Department, these programs can include \u201ca drug treatment facility, job skills program, or a youth program with drug and crime prevention education.\u201d Yet even this paltry figure may be inflated: Hiring Sparkles the Clown was listed as a \u201ccommunity-based program.\u201d\nMoreover, there is an appalling lack of oversight and accountability. The Department of Justice has only been able to\u00a0audit\u00a025 out of the 5,400 police departments and task forces that partake in equitable sharing. While the Justice Department\u2019s\u00a0guidelines\u00a0admonish that \u201cagencies should not \u2018spend it before you get it\u2019 or budget anticipated receipts,\u201d that hasn\u2019t stopped 100 departments and task forces from receiving the equivalent of at least 20 percent of their budgets from equitable sharing. For one Maryland police department, asset forfeiture is used both \u201cin tight budget periods, and even in times of budget surpluses.\u201d\nThe weak safeguards don\u2019t stop there. In callous disregard for federalism, police can routinely\u00a0evade state restrictions\u00a0and cash in through civil forfeiture, so long as they collaborate with a federal agency. For instance, Missouri and North Carolina are two of just\u00a0eight states\u00a0that ban law enforcement from keeping any forfeiture proceeds, according to the Institute for Justice\u2019s report, \u201cPolicing for Profit.\u201d But these laws don\u2019t apply to property seized under equitable sharing. So if local and state law enforcement partner with an agency like the DEA, they can take property under federal law, and keep up to\u00a080 percent\u00a0of the proceeds. In Missouri, instead of padding police budgets, any revenue generated from forfeiting property is supposed to fund public schools. But equitable sharing completely undermines that arrangement. In 2010, the Missouri State Auditor reported that of $5.7 million seized that year, \u201cless than $26,000 went to Missouri public schools.\u201d In contrast, over $4.2 million was transferred to a federal agency through equitable sharing, and then funneled back to local law enforcement.\nSimilarly, North Carolina is\u00a0the only state in the country\u00a0that essentially does not have civil forfeiture, instead requiring a criminal conviction before the government can take someone\u2019s property. Yet law enforcement still spent over\u00a0$90 million\u00a0in federally forfeited assets since 2008. In fact, according to\u00a0The Washington Post, North Carolina and Missouri are the\u00a0seventh and tenth largest spenders\u00a0of equitable sharing funds respectively.\nSen. Rand Paul and Rep. Tim Walberg haveintroduced new legislation\u00a0that would either end or curb equitable sharing, thereby stemming the flow of military-grade equipment onto our nation\u2019s streets. As local police departments continue to metastasize into paramilitary units, civil forfeiture reform is vital to reverse this disturbing trend.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://web.archive.org/web/20141024000304/http://walberg.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398483"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 0.8071118500083685, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}