Laserfiche WebLink
three ways: (1) its conclusion that no temporal relationship existed <br /> between the contributions and Ready-Mix's application; (2) its <br /> conclusion that the amount of contributions was insufficient to <br /> create a risk of bias; and (3) its conclusion that there was no actual <br /> bias. We disagree. <br /> * ��> NLGC first faults the district court for relying on the fact that <br /> Ready-Mix's application was not pending when the donations were <br /> made. Under Caperton, campaign contributions to a <br /> decision-maker when the case is "pending or imminent" can give <br /> rise to a risk of actual bias. Id. at 884. So, the district court's <br /> apparent requirement that the matter be pending when the <br /> contributions were made misapplies Caperton. Be that as it may, <br /> the error was harmless. <br /> FEU Although the application was submitted shortly after <br /> Donnelly's election, the Board did not take action on the matter for <br /> nearly two years. Putting aside that temporal disparity, there is <br /> also a key distinction between what NLGC and the Court consider <br /> "imminent." Unlike the contributions in Caperton, which were <br /> made after a trial, the contributions here were made before any <br /> action was taken on the application. Conspicuously absent is an <br /> 29 <br />