Thursday, May 18, 2006

FEC could fine Lamont Campaign $16k

If you can't get your campaign to meet FEC filing deadlines, you shouldn't be running for office. The FEC makes it easy to file online, and it's not like fundraising went all that well for Lamont.


The Federal Elections Commission said yesterday that the United States Senate campaign of Ned Lamont had failed to meet the deadline for filing a fund-raising report before the state Democratic nominating convention, which opens on Friday. The commission said it notified the campaign in April and again this month that the deadline for reporting April fund-raising was May 8.


NYT, By WILLIAM YARDLEY, May 18, 2006

60 comments:

tparty said...

Not quite:

"The commission said the campaign could be fined as much as$16,000."

TrueBlueCT said...

BULLSHIT HEADLINE, turffgirl.

Please control your own biases, and stick to the truth!

P.S. Why do you prefer Lieberman to Lamont?

cgg said...

I like Lamont and want him to do well at the convention. This isn't going to help with undecided delegates.

bluecoat said...

Tom Swan, the campaign finance guru for CT, is his campaign manager. It won't chang his delaegate supporters but it is newsworthy now that he put him self in the national fish bowl.

Nice post turffy;

Mr. Reality said...

Tom Swan "misunderstood" federal campaign rules? How can that be? Mr. ethics himself? That's about as weak of an excuse as Lisa Moody!!! Now we'll see all the hypocrites calling for clean elections defend Ned Lamont's campaign...or better yet they'll all remain quiet like they always do when THEY make a mistake.

bluecoat said...

And in the interest of balance on the Donkey side because I don't have an elephant story there isOut-of-staters boost Lieberman warchest in April; Lamont late to file from the Journal Inquirer. And it should not be surprising Swanny misunderstood the law because he is also mistaken that the CT CFR he pushed for is a good things.

tparty said...

I fail to understand how this news - which was reported last week, but which no one seemed to pay attention to at the time - should or will affect the convention or primary vote at all.

The campaign made a mistake about the date and filed a late report. Lamont has the money to pay for any fine himself (which has not been decided yet).

So what?

bluecoat said...

The NYT and JI articles appeared today. Sorry, I missed the reporting in the other papers of record last week.

bluecoat said...

and tp when you say Not quite:
"The commission said the campaign could be fined as much as$16,000."
I gather you are a cable guy supporter quibbling over size.

disgruntled_republican said...

thirdparty-

There is no way you can tell me that if it was Joe that missed the deadline even after not one but TWO CALLS from the FEC that you would have the same attitude.

So Ned could pay the fine out of his pocket...so could Joe on his salary but that too would be illegal. The fine is the campaigns, not Ned's.

disgruntled_republican said...

Oh...and if was reported last week, and you didn;t see it on here...why oh why didnt you bring it up? Did you not think we would care?

bluecoat said...

DG: Isn't it great we're getting to some real issues? I have been waiting for days. And the fine should help lower our national debt, too.

tparty said...

d_r: It was in the Journal Inquirer this past Friday.

And no, I wouldn't go after Joe for being late with a finance report. The same way I'm not going after him for having out-of-state donors. Those are irrelevant issues.

What matters is who is financing these campaigns, not where they live or if a report is filed a few days late.

truth squad said...

whats BS about the headline TBCT? no mention of his haliburton stock reported yesterday????

laughin at lamont said...

A deadline is a deadline 3rd. You cant vote at 5am on wednesday either.

turfgrrl said...

I'll add why this is a big deal, for those who are unfamiliar with how the FEC makes it brain dead easy for campaigns to file. A campaign is assigned a case officer who helps ensure the campaign files correctly and is that case officer is there to answer any questions. And, as the article implies, calls the campaign to remind them of deadlines. All federal races are required to file electronically, which simplifies the process greatly.

Gabe said...

I didn't know where to put this (I'm not sure its worth a front page post since it does not effect that many people and I am knee deep in equitable servitudes anyway), so here goes:

MoveOn.org will be holdig a secured online primary to determine whether to support Lamont, Lieberman, someone else, or no one at all in the Connecticut primary.

A 2/3 vote (of votes, not of members) is required in order for MoveOn to jump in and you must have been a member as of this morning at 8:00AM in order to vote.

The vote will take place for 24 hours starting in the morning of May 25th. My Left Nutmeg (linked above has all the details).

It will be interesting to see, assuming MO does get involved in favor of Lamont, how much of their resources will be brought to bear and how much of a difference it will make.

Gabe said...

And, of course, "holding" is generally spelled with an "n".

TrueBlueCT said...

Truthy--

The headline originally read:
"FEC Fines Lamont Campaign 16K".

Which isn't true.

Turfgirl changed the headline, without noting the changes. (which is continued B.S.)

The sad part is that if Turfgirl read the article, she had to know it wasn't true when she "reported" it. Which doesn't reflect well on her, or this blog.

TrueBlueCT said...

Turfgirl--

I hope you'll re-edit your diary to reveal your original headline. I've never known a blogger to make "corrections" that aren't transparent.

bluecoat said...

How come if third party saw the first JI article about Swanny, the champion of campaign finance laws, screwing up cable guy's reporting last Friday he didn't share the news with us? As soon as I saw It I shared. And didn't Swanny say that campaign finance violations were at the very root of corruption in CT?

bluecoat said...

So turrffy who is new to putting up posts fixes here mistake but doesn't do it per custom. Big whoop, she ain't running for office - lamont is and according to what Swanny is telling us for years now if you see a campaign violation, corruption will soon be on the horizon. CT corruption wants to go to Washington.

ctblogger said...

turffgirl-

This is a real low point for this blog. First, the headline was clearly false then you change the headline without giving notice. Genghis would of never pulled that type of crap.

Also, this is really old news as thirdparty clearly noted so what's the deal with posting this today?

Unlike my blog, I thought this site was suppose to be as unbiased as possible. I hope Genghis gives you a good slap on your wrist (or maybe give you the boot) as he would never do something as shady as changing a headline without making a notation of his error.

bluecoat said...

It appeared in the New York Times today for the first time - and it had never been posted by anybody in the past there CTblogger; maybe you should write a letter to the editor of the NYT instead of railling against turrffy. Most people who read this blog go way beyond the headlines.

truth squad said...

this is quite comical, the millionaire breaks campaign finance law and all you lamontiacs want to talk about is a headline. how bout addressing the issue at hand that he missed the deadline. i mean when your personal wealth is valued between $90-300 million you would think you could hire someone to make sure your filings get in one time. and whats the take on him owning Haliburton stock??

TrueBlueCT said...

Bluecoat--
Your posting here is laughable. Lamont might be a rookie, but he's not tending towards corruption, and won't be in his entire lifetime.

If you want corrupt, check out where Joe's money is coming from. $8400 donations from out-of-state households, many of them Republican. Which is not to mention the corporate fundraisers Lieberman's been engaging in.

Why do you support Lieberman over Lamont?

bluecoat said...

Dick Cheney says Halliburton is a good company and even Clinton set up contracts with the company for logistics stuff in order to down size the military.

bluecoat said...

Of course, I don't think he's tending to corruption but that's the crap we heard from Sawnny for years and it was always BULLSHIT but he managed to spin it.

Glad you're laughing becuase that was my intention.

bluecoat said...

and sorry to your question TBCT Why do you support Lieberman over Lamont? where did you get that idea; I don't support either of them; won't vote for either of them either.

disgruntled_republican said...

WHY CAN'T ANY LAMONT SUPPORTERS ADDRESS THE ISSUE AT HAND?

HEY MESSED UP AND MISSED A FILING DEALINE. YOU ARE ALL HYPOCRITES IF YOU CONTINUE TO DODGE THIS QUESTION.

AND WHERE WAS IT REPORTED THAT HE WAS LATE FILING? HIS PERSONAL EMAIL TO YOU? GIVE ME A LINK. AND IF IT WAS REPORTED, WHY WAS IT NOT SPOKEN OF? CTBLOGGER, DID YOU HAVE IT ON YOURS?

ctblogger said...

bluecoat:

She might not be running for office but she is a guest blogger on this site and there is certain things you don't do and changing content in a post without making a notation is number one on the list.

Genghis worked hard to make CLP a respectable blog and would never stoop to doing shady things like changing a headline without posting an update note. Also, this story is old news and was clearly done for partisan reasons.

There is a certain standard Genghis has set with the content of his blog and if the guest bloggers can't understand that, then maybe they should not be guest bloggers.

bluecoat said...

OK, OK, OK but the question is what did turffy know and when did she know it. Did she violate GC's policy knowingly or did she just sign off on it and never read it. My suggestion is that GC give her two weeks off next Christmas to think about what she has done. maybe she even needs to write 100 times I must not make a proper correction without first self flagellating to the entire community.

bluecoat said...

and Ctblogger when you say Also, this story is old news and was clearly done for partisan reasons. that's BULLSHIT because I put it up today on another thread and quite often stuff I have put up on a thread GC has highlighted on a new post such as the GOP Treasurer candidate notice in the post today that I linked yesterday.

ctblogger said...

D_R:

First off, enough with the all caps, it makes you look like a fool and you should conduct yourself better on this blog since your a guest blogger.

Second, third party already posted the article from 5/12 that talked about Lamont missing his deadline at 2:51. Maybe if you weren't coming unhinged, you would of caught that.

Third, this is not a big deal which is why no one really cared enough to do a post on it and I wouldn't of posted a thing if Joe missed the deadline because I don't see the point. Like thirdparty said, the real issue is the people who contribute to the campaign not whether or not someone misses a deadline.

Oh I can see it now...a undecided voter casting his or her vote on the fact that someone missed a deadline...give me a break.

With the convention one day away, do you really think people in Connecticut really care about this? Now, if you want to look into who is contributing to Lamont, feel free to do so...that's fair game, but a positng like this (which IS old news) AND changing the content of the post without giving disclosure is not only wrong, but dishonest.

bluecoat said...

the source from this post is NYT By WILLIAM YARDLEY, May 18, 2006 so it ain't old news unless there is something wrong with the little clock in the lower right hand corner of my screen.

ctblogger said...

I put it up today on another thread and quite often stuff I have put up on a thread GC has highlighted on a new post such as the GOP Treasurer candidate notice in the post today that I linked yesterday.

The difference is that I think Genghis would of known that this was old news and wouldn't of posted about this or at the very least, linked to the 5/12 piece (all bloggers use Google News alerts).

Also, I think Genghis would of raised a red flag about today's story BECAUSE it was already reported on 5/12 YET it was reported again today one day before the convention.

That's the real story.

bluecoat said...

The New York Times is absolutely one of the sleaziest rags going I agree; you should write their editor and protest.

and on the dihonest side I saw this headline on your ctblogger "DeStefano and Malloy invade Danbury" but no such invasion took place; danbury is still uninvaded - they just paid the town a visit.

bluecoat said...

and from CTblogger the latest headline is Lamont's delegate count does not matter so all you Donkey delegates should take note: you don't matter to CTBlogger.

Gabe said...

To answer D_R's challenge,

As a (reluctant) Lamont supporter, I am not in favor of him missing FEC filing deadlines. That said, I can't see the reason to get so fired up about it. He missed the deadline and (presumably) will pay the fine. Properly chastened, I imagine that he won't miss the next one.

As a supporter of lots of different types of election reform (and not a huge fan of this decision), I am more bothered by the $29,000+ that Joe Lieberman received as bundles from executives of CitiGroup and Northland (think the CitiGroup money would have been as forthcoming if he had voted against cloture on the bankruptcy bill?) and the $35,000+ from PACs (two biggest: an energy company and a manufacturer of military ordnance).

Am I a hypocrite? I don't know, because Lieberman has not missed a filing. I like to think that I would not be that upset about it. As long as he paid the fine and met future deadlines, what can you really do?

I can say this with certainty: It would not affect my vote one way or the other.

tparty said...

Gabe-

Thank you.

To be clear, I am not in favor of campaigns missing filing deadlines either. Nor am I in favor of individuals making late credit card payments. But the idea that this is even an issue worth discussing is laughable.

You really have to ask why the Lieberman people here are jumping on this? One day before the convention? With a candidate who eats up corporate lobbyist cash by the barrelfull?

It's obvious these folks have an acute case of Joementum. :)

ctblogger said...

danbury is still uninvaded - they just paid the town a visit.Oh my, you're sooo funny. I think there a plce in Vegas that could use your talent and wit.

Also, the point of my Lamont piece is to illustrate why the delegate count really doesn't really matter as much as people are trying to make it out to be and most political junkies already know this.

In the end, it all comes down to money, message, and organization which is why going the petition route is a wise move as DavidNYC at Swing State Project explained.

turfgrrl said...

ctblogger,

Since you are so interested, I updated the headline within seconds of sending the original post when I realized that I had mistyped the headline. I don't know why blogger has the post as a morning post, but it was not.

But your focus on a headline, which is an art form in the print world, is rather analogous to the old can't see the forest for the trees saying. My headline(s) aren't news, the Lamont campaign's inability to follow federal law is.

Gabe said...

Minor point here, but, the Lamont campaign ran afoul of FEC regulations, not federal law.

I am about 85% certain that things like filing deadlines and the penalties for missing them are not voted on and passed by Congress, but left to administrative agencies like the FEC to decide and implement.

Had they violated McCain-Feingold by accepting unlimited soft money they would have run afoul of federal law.

Like I said, neither here nor there...

ctkeith said...

Turfy sounds like M. Lisa Moody now.

"The Headline was never There" is about equal to "This meeting never Happened"

You made a mistake.Fix it by adding an update and an apology and MoveOn.

Mistakes are forgiveable,being arrogant and defending mistakes ain't.

turfgrrl said...

Gabe,

I was thinking along the lines of McCain-Feingold, which appears asreference to many of the FEC regulations. They FEC people tend to refer to that law as the reason for so many of the reg changes ...

turfgrrl said...

ctkeith,

Apparently you can't read.

Genghis Conn said...

Actually, according to http://query.nictusa.com/ (FEC), "By law, Senate committees are precluded from filing electronically." It's still a missed deadline, and that really ought not to happen.

It won't matter tomorrow night.

I'm not sure what you guys are waiting for. The headline was fixed. I make mistakes, too.

Gabe said...

I am waiting for someone else to take my property final for me tomorrow... Any takers?

Turf - as I said, a minor point...

ctblogger said...

From FEC Fines Lamont Campaign 16K to FEC could fine Lamont Campaign $16k and you call that mistyping? Got'cha.

You should of did a note to clarify that you made an error but instead you want to be arrogant about it.

Sad. Much you need to learn you young blogging grasshopper.

What about the fact that this is old news (5/12)? What about the fact that this old story was in today's paper a day before the convention.

Is this the best you can do in terms of finding dirt on Lamont? POst a week old story?

Three words: Google News Alerts.

Genghis, see ya at the convention!

Genghis Conn said...

Good luck on your propery final, Gabe!

disgruntled_republican said...

3rd party-

For the record I do not support Lieberman. Haven't since he abandoned his beliefs when he ran for Vice President (and no I did not for the pedifile that year...I wrote a name in). On Saturday I will vote for Schlesinger in New Britan and will do so again in November.

ctblogger-

It is a worthwhile post because he did do something wrong. You should have put it up a week ago when you learned of it. First I heard of it was today and i follow this stuff pretty closely. Fact is, if you hadn't carried on about the headline, it would have been a dead issue instead of me typing this 49th post on the subject. And for you to say you wouldn't put it up on your blog if Lieberman missed it is laughable. I totally beleive you would, and should have if it was Joe that did it.

That said, Gabe, thank you for stepping up. Only took Lamontum supporters 7 hours (realize you may not have been at a computer).

By the way, I typed in caps to get your attention since you were dodging the issue repeatedly...looks like it worked. If that makes me childish in your eyes, so be it. I won't lose sleep over it.

I am ready to move on to bigger issues and assume you are too.

disgruntled_republican said...

ctblogger...

Great english

Gabe said...

D_R -

That said, Gabe, thank you for stepping up. Only took Lamontum supporters 7 hours (realize you may not have been at a computer).

For this Lamont supporter, studying was more important than this issue. I feel that is wholly consistent with my view that missing a filing deadline, while undesirable, is not all that important.

That said, next time I will try to be quicker. ;)

And, I don't presume to speak for CTBlogger, but I believe that the English in question was a referrence to Yoda/Kung Fu movies.

Yes, I like Star Wars and Kung Fu movies. Stop judging me.

disgruntled_republican said...

I too like star wars and "should of did" is not proper anything except perhps ebonics ;-)

MikeCT said...

Colin & Bruce have an interview with Bill Hillsman, who created the Lamont ads. He notes that he did the Web ad for Kos' book and he used the same director for both ads.

Ray & Diane talked to Lamont yesterday.

Wolcottboy said...

Gosh... We're in convention mode already. Wish I could sit in at the Dem. convention.

Who wants to be on the Blog rules committee? We'll take 2 Republicans, 2 Lierberman supporters, 2 unnafiliated and maybe 1 Lamont supporter. Biased? Yes.... Deal with it.
Ok, ok. We can make it even - but a time limit of 5 minutes.

Turrf made a typo. Give her a break.

Chris MC said...

No ctblogger, after all the hoopla around here (and elsewhere), if Lamont doesn't make 15%, he's cooked, I don't care whether he petitions his way on or not. As I said on an earlier thread, enough delegates have said they will support Lamont that I won't be surprised at 25%.

I can also tell you that about half the people from my town committee who signed Lamont's petition (I didn't speak to all of them) said they were willing to let "anybody get on the ballot" but were not going to vote for him (much less work for him). And it is the newbies and the occasional participants circulating the petitions, not any of the experienced people.

Having personally implimented a chunk of the state-wide grassroots approach, I can tell you now that it just ain't gonna happen. Too many troops, too much rejection, too much time, too little thanks. If he doesn't make it big at the convention, we're all going to, er, move on.

Neal said...

Reality check, folks. First, TurfGrrl is mistaken when saying "All federal races are required to file electronically, which simplifies the process greatly." Senate campaign finance filings must be submitted on paper. They still don't accept electronic filings. Yes, the Senate operates in the stone age. Second, candidates miss these deadlines all the time. Lamont's slip was due to confusion over the rules and poor support from a software vendor. It's interesting to note that some sleazy candidates have been known to miss deadlines on purpose with the thought that keeping their finances a secret as elections approach is worth the cost of the fines. This was clearly not Lamont's motivation as everyone knows he has access to essentially unlimited funds. Third, although no details have been released by the FEC, these fines are often the responsibility of the campaign Treasurer. Treasurer John Hartwell does not appear to be a gazillionaire like Ned, so it's a pretty safe bet that this was an honest mistake. Fourth, while Lieberman and BushCo have us spending $250 million a day in Iraq, who really gives a rats ass about $16,000!

MikeCT said...

Why in the world would the FEC require that Senate candidates file on paper? Sounds like a regulation hatched by corrupt Senators who wanted to make tracking their contributions as difficult as possible? This is incomprehensible.

BRubenstein said...

As a Lamont supporter im proud to have signed his petition...but im not proud of the FEC fine...his capaign looks incompetant and dis-organized.I believe the major person at fault would be the Treasurer John Hartwell.