Opinion ID: 682427
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dickman As Thornburgh's Agent

Text: 92 Although both Thornburgh and Dickman testified that Thornburgh had not constituted Dickman as Thornburgh's agent for any purpose, agency can be implied from the conduct of the parties under the circumstances. 113 In the instant case, Dickman (the person authorized to answer interrogatories on behalf of the Committee) admitted in the Committee's answers to Rove & Company's interrogatories that he was the primary point of contact between the Committee and Defendant Richard Thornburgh. Dickman also acknowledged that he was known as an intermediary to Thornburgh regarding, inter alia, the running and organizing of Thornburgh's campaign. Thornburgh solicited Dickman's opinion on a day-to-day basis about campaign activities, including broad campaign strategies, where Thornburgh should speak, and what issues Thornburgh should address. Thornburgh used Dickman as his go-between to provide mailing lists, a signature exemplar, and edited solicitation letters to the Committee to facilitate the Committee's direct mail contract with Rove & Company. Thornburgh testified that Dickman was a loyal friend, who had served as a high-level assistant to Thornburgh during several of Thornburgh's campaigns and while Thornburgh served in various government positions. 114 93 Consistent with a principal's role, Thornburgh retained the ultimate authority over Dickman and Dickman's activities within the Committee. For example, even though Dickman took part in the Committee's decision to hire Davis as the Committee's Campaign Manager, Dickman acknowledged that, had Thornburgh disapproved of this choice, another campaign manager would have been selected. In addition, although Dickman authorized and assented to the Committee's contract with Rove & Company, Thornburgh retained control over the content of the fundraising letters and whether the letters would be mailed at all. 115 Finally, Thornburgh was the only person authorized to grant the Committee (and thus its employees, one of whom was Dickman) the authority to raise and spend funds on Thornburgh's behalf. Thornburgh thus had the right to withhold his authorization of the Committee, a decision that would have halted all Committee activities--including Dickman's. Consequently, the evidence supports the district court's finding that Dickman served as Thornburgh's agent acting under Thornburgh's control. Nevertheless, we still must determine the scope of Dickman's authority. 94