Case 2:17-cr-00563-JD Document 192 Filed 05/07/19 Page 32 of 85
Shamiin Specter, Esqo

    

February 8, 2019

The Honorable Jan E. DuBois
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse

601 Market Street

Philadelphia, 19106

Dear Judge DuBois:

I am writing in relation to Mr. Ken Smuckler who is to be sentenced
by Your Honor on March 13.

I have known Ken for all of my adult life. Ken?s parents were close
friends of my parents. I met Ken through mutual friends. We share an interest
in politics and have spent many hours over many years talking about politics
and related subjects.

Ken comes frOm a wealthy family. He inherited a large amount of
money. That gave him the freedom to do what he wanted to do, which was to
work in politics.

Over the years, we have worked on the same side sometimes and on
the opposite ,side sometimes. For most of Ken?s political work, I?ve not
supported either his client or the opponent.

Ken has worked for some ?ne people and for some who have lesser
reputations. Some of us have wondered why Ken would take on some of
these clients. But no one thought he did so to make money or to advance a
speci?c or improper agenda. And I believe no evidence was presented at trial
that he was motivated by such considerations.

Rather, Ken has always seemed to be motivated by the electoral battle
and the struggle itself, regardless of who his client might be. There?s nothing
legally, ethically or morally wrong with that. But by working with lesser
reputed ?gures, Ken exposed himself to the legal vagaries and bad habits of
their worlds. That is not a crime and should not be punished.

I know the speci?c behavior for which was Ken convicted. He was
found to have broken the law in connection with the ?nancing of political

Case 2:17-cr-00563-JD . Document 192 Filed 05/07/19 Page 27 of 85

The Honorable Jan E. DuBois
Page 2
February 8, 2019

campaigns. I know the rules he was found to have broken. I am not going to
tell you he didn?t do it; I respect the jury?s verdict.

But two things bother me that bear on the appropriate sentence.

First, the illegal acts Ken was found to have committed are ethically
and morally far less blameworthy than acts that have been legalized by the
Supreme Court. Yes, one shouldn?t use general election money to pay
primary campaign debts. Yes, one should not pay an opponent to quit a race.
But it?s legal to elect or defeat candidates with limitless amounts of money
funded by people and companies whose identities are secret. That?s worse.

If Ken had needed money and had worked for rich and anonymous
manipulators of the political process, he?d be guilty of nothing and charged
with nothing. But he?d be perverting democracy.

Ken chose instead to make little money and help local pols deep in the
bowels of the sometimes grimy world of Philadelphia politics. These
candidates didn?t have the largesse of billionaires and big companies and their
legal, but dark and anti-democratic money. Ken was found to have committed
process crimes when the process is regularly and legally but sadly
manipulated and no one is charged or convicted.

Second, the real bene?ciaries of Ken?s efforts were not charged. I am
not saying they were guilty of anything; I don?t know. But it is relevant to the

gravity of Ken?s offenses that the real bene?ciaries were not charged.

Thank you for your consideration of this letter.

Respectfully,

SS/dg