Remember the strange not so little matter of $567,000 of in-kind donations in Linda McMahon’s 3Q FEC report? The ones The New London Day’s ace reporter Ted Mann questioned in a piece on Dec 11th because they appeared to obfuscate the identity of who was providing what to McMahon’s campaign?
Those outlays are for “computer support,” “legal consulting,” “political strategy consulting,” “survey research” and other campaign services. None of the recipients of those payments – those who provided the services to her campaign – is identified in the report…
Ed Patru, a spokesman for the McMahon campaign, said he could not explain why so many expenditures are reported as in-kind contributions, or say whether the campaign intended to shield the identities of some of the campaign’s vendors.
Not long after, the McMahon campaign’s attorney, Michael Toner issued this statement:
“The McMahon Campaign has fully complied with all FEC reporting regulations and reported the in-kind contributions exactly as the FEC prescribes in its published materials. In fact, the McMahon Campaign has gone beyond the FEC’s reporting requirements by identifying all of its donors, even those who contribute under $200 to the campaign. The FEC thoroughly reviews every federal campaign’s disclosure reports and notifies campaigns in writing if the FEC has any questions about the reports; the FEC has not sent any such correspondence to the McMahon Campaign about its FEC report. There is absolutely no basis for this story.”
And campaign spokesman Patru was back on the defensive: “Why would we amend or re-file something that without question is filed correctly?”
Well…it looks like the FEC has “thoroughly reviewed” McMahon’s report and determined that contrary to Toner’s assertion, there absolutely was basis for Mann’s story. Turns out that attorneys for the FEC want more detail on these in-kind payments.
In a letter sent to the campaign on Christmas Eve, the commission instructs the campaign to provide the names of the recipients of McMahon’s in-kind payments, information that is “essential to the full public disclosure of your federal election campaign finances.”
The notice instructs McMahon’s campaign to provide the information by Jan. 28 or face “enforcement action.”
Campaigns must disclose the identities of vendors paid for goods and services if the in-kind payments total more than $200 over an election cycle, wrote Robin Kelly, a senior campaign finance analyst at the commission. The threshold for disclosure is $500 for expenses related to “travel and subsistence.”
Among the in-kind contributions in McMahon’s October quarterly filing are substantially larger expenditures, including tens of thousands paid for legal advice and consulting work.
The campaign intends to answer the FEC correspondence prior to the Jan 28th deadline, according to spokesman, Ed Patru.
While we’re talking about Mrs. McMahon, I’m just wondering – when she said “We need to focus on the real issues, not the fictitious content of pro wrestling,” is she actually going to let us know her positions on those issues? Her website is completely void of position statements, other than a bio and lots of lovely videos of her on the campaign trail. Oh yeah, and the flash badge that says “fiscal conservative”, which kind of makes me chuckle, given that she’s throwing money around the state of Connecticut like there’s no tomorrow and before the dust has even settled on her first FEC report we’ve got financial irregularities.
18 responses so far ↓
What is Linda McMahon hiding from the people of Connecticut?
not much. we gots videos of her kickin balls and getting pile drived.
maybe she paid the superfly to hollow out andre the giant’s corpse and use it as a houseboat.
So what’s the big deal?
Didn’t Obama make election fraud the thing to do?
Are we now supposed to hold McMahon to a new and higher standard?
Obama set the precident, so why can’t anybody else follow the same path?
“By: Ken Timmerman”
“What do Bart Simpson, Family Guy, Daffy Duck, King Kong, O.J. Simpson, and Raela Odinga have in common?
All are celebrities; and with the exception of Odinga and O.J. Simpson, they also are fictional characters. And yet, all of them gave money earlier this month to the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent effort by the campaign to screen them out as suspect donors.
The Obama fundraising machine may owe its sensational success in part to a relaxation of standard online merchant security practices, which has allowed illegal donations from foreign donors and from unknown individuals using anonymous “gift” cards, industry analysts and a confidential informant tell Newsmax
Though many of the known violations include donations in excess of the $2,300 per election limit on individual contributions and contributions from foreign nationals, the extent of the amount of fraud is hidden because of a loophole in federal election law.
Campaigns are not required to disclose contributors who donate less than $200 — and Obama’s campaign refuses to release their names, addresses, and donation amounts. Obama has collected a staggering $603.2 million. Most of the money — $543.3 million — has come from individual contributors, half of it from “small” donors Obama won’t disclose. ”
Entire article here…
http://newsmax.com/KenTimmerman/obama-illegal-donations/2008/10/21/id/339941
bluecoat thats cool. if we had a federal campaign finance program this stuff wouldn’t happen.
Just plain sloppy, and also pretty high-handed.
$537,000 spent, with no disclosure, and Ed Patru thinks Linda McMahon is within the law?
Of course you need to disclose who those payments went to! That basic transparency is what the disclosure reporting is all about. What from who, and what to whom. You can’t just pay out more than half a million $$$ and list it as “in-kind contributions”, simply because the money was spent before a formal declaration.
Can’t wait to see who actually got what. Over $100,000 in consulting fees, a strange rent payment of over $100,000, and more.
PS– Is this what Linda is getting for her millions? A campaign staff that can be so completely off on something so very basic?
Scoop,
It’s the way things are done now.
Her staff are probably left overs from the Obama campaign.
Transparency does not exist anymore.
How dare we ask where the money comes from!
Reporting irregularities are not financial irregularities……
I’m confused. Why will candidates spend up to $30 million for a job that pays only $170,000?
KK,
Maybe they can’t wait to get on the Government Health Care Plan?
Newsmax links give all conservatives a bad name. Same with World Net Daily. Liberals think George Bush planned the 9/11 attacks by himself and rightwing cranks get their news from these type of sources.
The Obama financial juggernaut will be in full motion in 2012 and Republicans would be wise to prepare for it rather than engage in ridiculous conspiracy theories.
>>I’m confused. Why will candidates spend up to $30 million for a job that pays only $170,000?
Power’s an aphrodisiac.
Chris Murphy spent roughly double what his two year pay would be as state rep to take that seat.
Blumberg spent over 100 million to buy himself the NYC mayor’s job.
Corzine spent some absurd number in the zillions for his little ego trip through the Senate and then into the NJ Governor’s mansion.
>>Newsmax links give all conservatives a bad name
That’s right – when you can’t challenge the facts, try poisoning the source instead.
Don’t confuse Newsmax with crap such as FreeRepublic where fact checking is considered a bizarre notion.
I guess we’ll just pretend that cpusa.org doesn’t mirror the DNC.
The “facts” can be easily checked but why waste your time? Much of the “case” , such as it is, is based on the assumption of foreign donations. That’s nonsense, of course, written by someone unfamiliar with modern methods of sending donations through the internet. With a single click you can send $20.08 or whatever the hell amount you want.
More interesting than that type of garbage was when the myth of Obama’s small donor “base” was busted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102996.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008102103028&s_pos
If Republicans are going to win back the presidency they’re going to have win back these donors. Obama had a 2-1 cash advantage over McCain. That can’t continue if the Republicans are to have any hope. And that means getting serious again about attracting those with deep wallets.
B.B.,
I’ll trust Ken Timmerman’s credentials rather than yours.
Have you been nominated for the Noble Peace Prize lately?
The Obama campaign showed no interest in shutting down their scam credit card business. A conspiracy theory? What a crock of B.S. Tell us where the money came from, I’m sure most of it came from Geaorge Soros.
>>Have you been nominated for the Noble Peace Prize lately?
“Nominated”??
Just pick a box of these <at a store near you!
The same Timmerman who was nominated along with John Bolton for a Peace Prize? Spare me your absurdities.
Again, crying about George Soros or whatever liberal boogeyman you want to insert is pathetic. In 2000, George Bush trounced Gore in fundraising and won the presidency. Although closer in 2004, President Bush still raised over $40 million more than Kerry. So I’ll repeat what I already wrote: Republicans have to win the money war in 2012.
The choice is clear – Peter Schiff for Senate 2010.
This was posted today at American Thinker.
Can someone explain to me why Democrat Congressmen & Women have e-mail addresses with a lobbying firm? Is this normal?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/the_711_of_democratic_fundrais.html
You must log in to post a comment.