$8,300 Returned: Shelby County Commissioner Brandon Morrison Clears Name and Distances Herself Amid Growing Tennessee Prosperity PAC Donation and More for Memphis Scandal

By Public Affairs Staff on January 9, 2025

Shelby County Commissioner Brandon Morrison

MEMPHIS, TN — As controversy continues to surround the $100 million More for Memphis ordinance and its ties to Tennessee Prosperity PAC, Commissioner Morrison has stepped forward to clarify her position. Morrison, who was listed among the elected officials receiving PAC donations, revealed that she had returned the $8,300 contribution long before the current scandal emerged.

“Please correct the record,” Morrison wrote in an email to the Shelby County Observer. “We did receive and deposit the check on 04/11/2022 — we issued a check to refund the money on 05/20/22, and the check for $8,300.00 cleared the bank on 06/07/22.” Morrison also urged the Shelby County Observer to notify investigative reporter Joe Kent, who has been central in uncovering the financial connections between local officials and the PAC.

Morrison’s decision to return the funds more than two years ago, long before the More for Memphis ordinance and Tennessee Prosperity PAC became the focus of intense public scrutiny, adds a new dimension to the narrative. Her actions stand in sharp contrast to other elected officials who have yet to address or explain their ties to the PAC.

Why Would a Politician Return a PAC Donation Early?

1. Preemptive Ethical Integrity

Morrison’s early refund of the $8,300 may reflect a proactive effort to avoid any potential conflicts of interest, even before public concerns about Tennessee Prosperity PAC arose. It suggests a commitment to maintaining ethical boundaries in her political dealings.

2. Unforeseen Risks

Although the More for Memphis scandal had not yet broken, Morrison may have identified early red flags surrounding Tennessee Prosperity PAC and its donors. Her decision to return the funds might have been driven by a sense of unease about the source or implications of the donation.

3. Alignment With Political Principles

Morrison may have determined that accepting funds from the PAC did not align with her values or political goals. Returning the donation could have been a matter of principle, ensuring her campaign funding came from sources she deemed appropriate.

4. Advice From Trusted Advisors

Political advisors or legal counsel may have recommended returning the funds to avoid future complications. Such advice could have stemmed from concerns about the PAC’s intentions or the possibility of future scrutiny.

5. Financial Independence

Returning the donation could also signal Morrison’s desire to maintain independence in her decision-making, free from any real or perceived obligations to large political donors like Tennessee Prosperity PAC.

Implications for the More for Memphis Scandal

Morrison’s refund of the PAC funds may absolve her from direct involvement in the ongoing controversy, but it raises additional questions for other elected officials. Commissioners Whaley, Wright, Ford Jr., Mills, Avant, and Sugarmon, as well as multiple Memphis City Council members, have yet to address their acceptance of donations from Tennessee Prosperity PAC, which has been linked to the More for Memphis ordinance.

The timeline of Morrison’s actions suggests she recognized potential concerns early on, unlike her colleagues who appear entangled in a growing web of ethical and legal questions. Her transparency places added pressure on others to clarify their positions and disclose whether they have returned funds or remain connected to the PAC.

Elected Officials Yet to Address Tennessee Prosperity PAC Contributions Amid Allegations of Official Oppression

As the controversy surrounding the $100 million More for Memphis ordinance intensifies, both Shelby County Commissioners and Memphis City Council members face mounting questions about their financial ties to Tennessee Prosperity PAC. Beyond the PAC contributions, accusations of official oppression have surfaced, citing tactics used to silence dissenters, including reducing public speaking times, interrupting speakers, and even issuing threats.

Shelby County Commissioners

1. Commissioner Whaley: $8,300
2. Commissioner Ford Jr.: $8,300
3. Commissioner Mills: $8,300
4. Commissioner Avant: $8,300
5. Commissioner Sugarmon: $4,000

While Commissioner Brandon Morrison refunded her $8,300 donation in 2022, many months before the More for Memphis scandal erupted, her colleagues have remained silent. These commissioners not only failed to disclose their financial ties but also participated in public meetings and votes, raising concerns about potential violations of state law.

During public meetings, Shelby County Commissioners engaged in tactics that many see as official oppression, including intentionally reducing the speaking time for dissenters from three minutes to one minute. This calculated decision effectively stifled public input and hindered meaningful opposition to the ordinance.

Memphis City Council Members

1. Councilman Smiley Jr.: $2,500
2. Councilwoman Easter-Thomas: $2,500
3. Councilwoman Green: $5,000
4. Councilman Spinosa: $2,500
5. Councilwoman White: $2,500
6. Councilman Carlisle: $2,500
7. Councilman Canale: $2,500

Memphis City Council members not only failed to disclose their PAC contributions but also took active steps to suppress dissent during public hearings. Witnesses have reported council members interrupting speakers mid-statement, issuing threats to dissenters, and creating a hostile environment that deterred public participation. These actions directly undermine the principles of transparency and fairness, further implicating these officials in ethical and legal violations.

Legal Violations in Focus

The actions of these elected officials—accepting PAC funds, participating in meetings or votes, and silencing dissent—may constitute violations of multiple Tennessee laws, including:

1. T.C.A. § 8-50-501 et seq. – Conflict of Interest Laws

• Prohibits public officials from participating in decisions where they have a financial interest. Accepting PAC donations while deliberating or voting on More for Memphis ordinances violates this provision.

2. T.C.A. § 2-10-310 – Campaign Finance and Conflicts of Interest

• Forbids elected officials from accepting contributions that create actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Failing to disclose contributions while engaging with More for Memphis representatives breaches this statute.

3. T.C.A. § 39-16-402 – Official Misconduct

• Participation in meetings, votes, or discussions after accepting PAC contributions may constitute official misconduct, defined as using public office for personal or financial gain.

4. T.C.A. § 39-16-403 – Official Oppression

• Cutting public speaking times, interrupting speakers, and threatening dissenters fall under the definition of official oppression, a misuse of authority to suppress public input and disadvantage opposition voices.

5. T.C.A. § 8-17-102 – Code of Ethics for Local Government Officials

• Mandates local officials to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Participating in More for Memphis discussions while accepting PAC contributions contravenes these ethical standards.

Participation vs. Recusal: An Ethical and Legal Quandary

Even officials who recused themselves from voting may not be absolved. Tennessee’s conflict-of-interest laws emphasize that recusal must be unequivocal. Attending meetings, engaging with representatives, or otherwise influencing discussions while financially tied to Tennessee Prosperity PAC still violates the principles of transparency and accountability.

Official Oppression: A Threat to Public Discourse

The tactics used by both the Shelby County Commission and Memphis City Council to silence dissenting voices reflect a broader pattern of official oppression:

• Shelby County Commission: Reducing public speaking time from three minutes to one minute was an overt attempt to curtail opposition and diminish the public’s ability to voice concerns.
• Memphis City Council: Interrupting speakers and issuing threats during public hearings created a hostile environment that discouraged and chilled citizen voices and participation, directly undermining the democratic process.

These actions not only violate ethical and legal standards but also erode public trust in local government.

Implications for Accountability

While Commissioner Morrison’s early refund of PAC funds demonstrates a proactive approach to ethics, her colleagues’ silence raises serious concerns. Their financial ties to Tennessee Prosperity PAC, coupled with efforts to suppress public input, suggest a deliberate strategy to push the More for Memphis ordinance forward without accountability.

Morrison’s timely decision to refund the $8,300 campaign donation underscores the importance of foresight and ethics in public service, a stark contrast to the current climate of suspicion and scandal engulfing Memphis and Shelby County politics.

About Post Author

Shelby County Observer

See author's posts