The Matt Kelty grand jury is heading to its third day of deliberation, and either way it turns out, it's a big story, isn't it? If there is a recommendation to charge him with a campaign-finance-reporting violation, the talk will be about whether he should drop out of the mayor's race and who might replace him if he does. If the conclusion is that no violation occurred, we have to acknowledge that there is a big loophole in state law. Though "candidates" must report loans as campaign contributions, a "person" can accept a loan, then in turn loan it to his own campaign without reporting it. The law's intent to guarantee contribution transparency would be made meaningless.
I have no clue how it will turn out. A prosecutor ordinarily does not even bring something to a grand jury unless he wants an indictment, and prosecutors seldom fail to get what they want from a grand jury. But in cases like this, in which a special prosecutor is appointed because those who would normally handle it might have a conflict of interest, the point is not to secure an indictment but to convince people that fairness is being sought. I'd say the grand jurors actually have the power in this case that people mistakenly think they always have.
