Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Thursday, November 02, 2006

 

Lieberman Breaks Campaign Finance Law

Really, there's no other conclusion to be reached.

Again, there is a reason disclosures like this are required by law. Because if expenditures are not itemized, and you have almost 10% of a campaign's warchest floating around in cash, it can be spent in any number of nefarious ways.

If this is just allowed to just slip by, think of what a horrible precedent it will set. What's to stop a future campaign from declaring 20% of their funds in unitemized "petty cash?" 50%? 100%? Where is the line drawn?

Joe Lieberman owes voters an explanation. He owes reporters a look at the petty cash journal he was required by law to have kept... if he even has it.

Update: Matt Browner-Hamlin, who's been on top of this story from the beginning, has a lot more. He's right. This is getting serious:

The Lieberman campaign essentially paid campaign workers off the books. The article doesn't find people who were necessarily paid more than $100 in petty cash (which would be illegal), but these are all individuals who received over $200 and thus should be itemized on Lieberman's reports. Failure to provide full information about these people, including their names and addresses, is an avoidance of the law. At minimum this information continues to fill out our understanding of the extent to which the Lieberman campaign stopped obeying campaign finance requirements and regulations during the Democratic primary....

The Lieberman campaign's continued silence only strengthens the need to ask questions like O'Leary has done in this article. She has brought out new information that demands answers from Joe; if she can't get them, I hope the FEC will. Every piece of evidence that comes out suggests malfeasance, albeit of varying degrees, by Joe's campaign. Lieberman's actions and Lieberman's silence do damage to the health of our elections. The need for truth has never been more clear than today.

Comments:
Now that we know that expenditures that have been itemized in Lieberman's disclosure report have been falsified, talking about the Petty Cash is "getting into the weeds". Too much explaining, no smoking gun.

The faked checks to these consultants are smoking guns, and there's probably much more faked expenditures in Joe's reports.

The focus should be there.

For all we know, there's $500,000 in faked expenses and the Petty Cash is a minor contribution to their slush fund money
 
Everyone got asked to comment on John Kerry's joke. How come McCain, Feingold, Shays and Meehan haven't been asked about what Lieberman taking this kind of money out of his campaign in cash does to their campaign finance reform legislation? Its 2 weeks already and this guy isn't some obscure state legislator from a holler in Kentucky. He ran for Vice President and President.
 
In the immortal (or is it immoral I always get them screwed up)words of my friend Kos:

"Screw them" if they don't like John Kerry's comments.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home