FEC complaint: illegal millions funneled to McGavick

Neil Modie’s got the scoop in today’s Seattle P-I on a really major Federal Elections Commission complaint the WA State Dems plan to file against GOP senate candidate “Lobbyist Mike” McGavick.

The Dems allege that the revised compensation package McGavick struck with Safeco on December 6, 2005 — more than a month after he officially declared his candidacy — essentially amounted to an illegal, $17 million contribution to McGavick for “personal use.”

I haven’t had the chance yet to read the complaint, but my understanding is that the facts really aren’t in dispute… this will simply come down to how the FEC (and eventually, the courts) interpret campaign finance law. But should the ruling go against McGavick, the consequences could be huge. The Democrats are seeking “the highest civil penalties available under the law.”

I’ll reserve my comments on the merits of the complaint until after I’ve had the chance to study the relevant code, and perhaps discuss it with some legal experts. But the part of Modie’s article I found most interesting was the GOP’s official response:

“These are baseless accusations,” Julie Sund, McGavick’s campaign spokeswoman, replied Tuesday.

“The Democrats are obviously looking at the same polls we are. The race is getting tight and they’re resorting to early, mean-spirited attacks because the know the incumbent is in trouble and they want to divert attention away from the real issues in the race.”

Uh-huh.

Of course, if you’re going to categorize an FEC complaint as an “early, mean-spirited attack,” then I guess it’s worth pointing out that state GOP beat the Dems to the punch with their frivolous FEC complaint against WA-08 challenger Darcy Burner. Likewise, if it is fair to imply that the Dems’ complaint was prompted by concerns over a tightening race, then the same should certainly be said of the GOP complaint coming in the wake of Burner’s surprising fundraising results and rising profile.

Of course, the difference is, the GOP complaint was not only frivolous, it was trivial, involving a couple hundred dollars worth of volunteer work… whereas the Dems allegations are huge, describing a deliberate attempt to skirt the campaign finance laws by funneling millions of dollars directly into McGavick’s personal bank account.

In the battle of the FEC complaints, I say, score one for the Dems.

UPDATE:
Read the full text of the Dems complaint.

Comments

  1. 1

    HAD ENOUGH YET? spews:

    Keep going Richard, you’ve got ‘em on the run!
    Right now the Safeco board is holding a special meeting of the executive committee, and Locke and Runstadt are confabing with $800/hour lawyers to figure out how to deal with “Richard the Terrifying”. My guess is they’ll use “The Ring of Power”.

  2. 2

    Danno spews:

    Jaxoff @ 33-

    I don’t know why you dumb Seattle moonbats haven’t figured it out yet, it is you who live in a moonbat bubble.

  3. 3

    Richard Pope spews:

    Judith Runstad, one of the Safeco Corporation board members who would have approved Mike McGavick’s $17 million compensation package, not only is a major Democrat campaign contributor, but has also given money to Maria Cantwell.

    Runstad gave $1,000.00 to Cantwell’s 2000 campaign on November 8, 2000. A day after the general election, but remember Cantwell needed to repay millions that she had loaned to her own campaign.

    Runstad has given $2,750.00 to Cantwell’s 2006 campaign: $1,000.00 on March 23, 2001, $250.00 on January 12, 2002, $500.00 on July 21, 2003, and $1,000.00 on July 26, 2005.

  4. 4

    headless lucy spews:

    Republicans take little crimes against themselves and transform them into “outrages”. Republicans take huge crimes against humanity that they themselves perpetrate and transform them into unfounded allegations.

  5. 5

    headless lucy spews:

    I have total confidence that justice will be served. After all, don’t we have the best justice system that money can buy?

  6. 6

    headless lucy spews:

    re 5: As an ex-student senator at NAU I know ( and so do you ,Richard ) that all it takes to get a unanimous vote in this context is to make a motion that the vote be recorded as unanimous and a quick second to the motion produces and ,voila, as if by magic, we have a “unanimous” vote.

    I have it on good authority that this is the sort of unanimous vote we are talking about.

  7. 7

    ArtFart spews:

    You know, if I was a Demcrat/liberal/progressive/whatever (which I am) and a Safeco policyholder (which I’m not), I think I’d be rather motivated to go sign up with another carrier, and send a letter to Safeco along with my cancellation explaining my displeasure over seeing my premiums going into McGavick’s campaign coffers.

    Oh, yeah….I don’t know if our freeper friends noticed, but Gary Locke ain’t holding public office anymore. If he really approved this thing, knowing what was going on, no way in hell will I vote for him if he runs for office again.

  8. 8

    LeftTurn spews:

    I’ve just copied the text of Dickie Pope’s letter and sent it to the republican board members at Safeco. Since they far outnumber the Dems, I’d be willing to trade prison terms for all. Not that Pope will win. He’s never won anything. But it’s fun playing under his rules. Smash and grab law. No wonder Dickless Dickie’s such a failure.

  9. 9

    headless lucy spews:

    Richard: You are such an ass! Trying to equate money given to Cantwell AFTER the election to millions funneled in the weasely Republican way that skirts the spirit of the law if not the letter. Remember: Defeating the spirit of the law ( corporations contributing illegally to political elections ) DOES violate the letter of the law — because thats PART of the letter of the law.

    Why the hell, Richard, do you want elected representatives beholden to corporations? Unless that’s what you think our country is all about.

  10. 10

    Danno spews:

    Goldy, Rubber Room Rabbit, Indian Fart, Jaxoff, losers all-

    Get a life. This is employee compensation, maybe excessive, but you cannot stretch it into a campaign contribution.

  11. 11

    Richard Pope spews:

    I can think of two lawyers that Dwight Pelz should have consulted with before sending the letter to the FEC — prominent Democrat lawyers Gary Locke and Judith Runstad, who also happen to be major supporters of Maria Cantwell — and MEMBERS OF THE SAFECO CORPORATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

    I bet you that Locke and Runstad have a far different opinion of this matter than does Pelz. When I receive their views of this matter, I will be sure to let everyone know about them.

  12. 12

    Chad Lupkes spews:

    No Goldy, you’re absolutely wrong. This evens the score doesn’t it? I mean, if the GOP complains about a $200 fraud from Andrew Tsao, and then if the Dems complain about $17 MILLION from that great corporate citizen Safeco, then given the difference in incomes between the Conservatives who earn 90% of their income from dividends and the Progressives who have to choose between Health Care costs and FOOD, I mean that has to be about even steven, doesn’t it? This is all relative, right?

    McGavick should pull out of the race, now. He’s going to lose, and he knows it. Even Mark Wilson would crush him in the General Election. (Yeah, I know. Blah, Blah, it’s not his game. You’re right. It’s our game, and McGavick will be the loser on November 7th. Bet on it.)

  13. 13

    spews:

    I’m struck by the serious tone of the WA Dems’ letter to the FEC regarding the McGavick-Safeco connection, as opposed to the childishly silly pouting by the WSRP about Eastside DFA’s Burner video.

    Why, it appears that Dwight Pelz may have actually consulted a lawyer before sending his letter.

  14. 14

    rujax206 spews:

    You betcha Danno, that REALLY passes the smell test…NOT!

    Just keep livin’ in yer little bushiebubble, little bushiebubbleboy.

  15. 15

    Richard Pope spews:

    Also, in my opinion, if the McGavick compensation package was indeed an illegal contribution, then attorneys Locke and Runstad are more culpable than the other non-attorney Safeco board members. Obviously, Locke and Runstad are both attorneys. But they also have a lot of experience in campaign finance. Locke held public office over a period of 22 years and received millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Runstad has made tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. In addition, there are reasons why Safeco (or any other corporation) chooses attorneys to sit on its board — TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CORPORATION IS OBEYING THE LAW!

  16. 16

    Richard Pope spews:

    Since, my previous postings, I have checked out the bios of the other 8 Safeco Corporation board members. None of them indicated that they are attorneys or ever attended any sort of law school. I also checked their names against the WSBA database. None of the 8 were attorneys, although one of the other board members had a son with the same first and last name (but with a different generational suffix — i.e. Sr., Jr., III, IV, V, etc.) who was an attorney.

  17. 17

    rhp6033 spews:

    I haven’t considered getting a Safeco policy for years, ever since I saw how they treated their own policy holders. File an Under-Insured moterist claim against them, they use their in-house counsel to low-ball you until jury selection is about to begin. Then they finally start to make the first reasonable offer. A company that abuses its customers that way won’t be getting my business, nor the business of any of my friends that I can persuade otherwise.

  18. 18

    rhp6033 spews:

    Richard Pope named two Democratic board members and said he would report them to the Bar Association for making an illegal campaign contribution to Mike MacGavick. He said he hadn’t checked out the bios of the other board members.

    1. So Richard Pope is admitting that MacGavick’s compensation is an illegal campaign contribution? As a member of the Bar, Pope could be subject to sanctions for referring a complaint to the WSBA Disciplinary Board which he believed to be false.

    2. Pope “Hadn’t yet investigated the bios of other board members?” Translation: “I’m only going to do this to the Democrats. The Republicans get off scott-free in my book.” If the board members are guilty of a felony, why give the rest of them a pass? Its just as easy to refer it all to the prosecutor, isn’t it? Perhaps the King County Prosecutor (Republican) can explain why he isn’t investigating a felony charge against bigwig insurance executives, while his governing association (WSBA) conducts an inquiry only against Democrats? While you are setting the barn on fire while everyone is still inside it, how do you think the Republican Party is going to respond to your “kill ‘em all” tactics? I don’t think you have thought this one through, thoroughly.

    It’s all smoke and mirrors, anyway. We know how this bar complaint would go. The Bar Association will conduct a year-long investigation, and well after the election will announce that the complaint is not related to the practice of law, and that there is no clear evidence of an intent to violate the law, as would be required for a felony conviction. This is how Bar complaints are handled in Washington state if the attorney is in a big firm or is a power player. It’s the sole practitioners that get hammered.

    But that doesn’t meant the contribution isn’t illegal. A contribution can be illegal without meeting the burden of proof as to intent. If upheld, MacGavick can be required to return the payment.

  19. 19

    Richard Pope spews:

    The Washington State Democrat Party still hasn’t posted their FEC complaint about Safeco and Mike McGavick on their website.

    Is this because they are afraid it will be downloaded and instantly turned into a Washington State Bar Association complaint against Gary Locke and Judith Runstad, based upon their own political party accusing them of FELONY violations of federal election law.

    Here is my e-mail to Dwight Pelz and the Washington State Democrat Party, requesting a copy of their recent FEC complaint:

    “I read in today’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer that the Washington State Democrat Party has filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission, alleging that Safeco violated federal campaign finance law by, in effect, giving Mike McGavick a $17 million contribution to run for the United States Senate:

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....ick26.html

    However, I have not been able to find any news releases on the Washington State Democrat Party announcing this complaint, much less a PDF copy of your recently filed complaint.

    Back on April 12, 2006, when the Washington State Republican Party filed a much less serious complaint against Darcy Burner, a news release announcing the complaint was posted on their website that very same day, along with a PDF copy of the entire 18 page complaint as well.

    Could you please send me a PDF copy of your recent FEC complaint against Safeco and Mike McGavick? I would very much appreciate being able to read this for myself.”

  20. 20

    Richard Pope spews:

    Here is my e-mail to Gary Locke and Judith Runstad, asking them to respond to the Washington State Democrat Party complaint against Safeco Corporation and Mike McGavick:

    Subject: Wa State Dem Party Safeco SEC Complaint & Your Possible Ethical Violations
    Date: 4/26/2006 11:46:33 A.M. Pacific Standard Time
    From: RPope98155
    To: garylocke@dwt.com, runsj@foster.com
    CC: RPope98155

    Dear Gary Locke and Judith Runstad:

    In today’s (Wed 04/26/2006) Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Dwight Pelz and the Washington State Democrat Party have accused Safeco Corporation of making an illegal $17 million contribution to the campaign of Mike McGavick, a candidate for the United States Senate. Prior to his U.S. Senate campaign, Mr. McGavick served for several years as President and Chief Executive Officer of Safeco Corporation.

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....ick26.html

    I have reviewed the Safeco Corporation website, and it appears that both of you were on its Board of Directors when they approved what the Washington State Democrats are alleging was an illegal $17 million campaign contribution. In fact, you two appear to be the only members of the Safeco Board of Directors who are licensed attorneys.

    http://phx.corporate-ir.net/ph.....l-govBoard

    I have not yet read the FEC complaint filed by the Washington State Democrat Party. It is not posted on their website, but I have requested them to e-mail a copy of it to me. Hopefully, the Washington State Democrats will publicly release their complaint, so that it is not necessary to make a public records request to the FEC to obtain a copy of it.

    If the article in the Seattle P-I is correct, the Washington State Democrats are accusing Safeco Corporation and its Board of Directors of violating federal law. 2 USC 441b(a) prohibits all corporations from making any contributions whatsoever to candidates for federal elected office. Even if Safeco Corporation were a natural person, instead of a corporation, 2 USC 441a(a)(1)(A) would limit its contribution to Mr. McGavick to no more than $2,100 for the primary election, and another $2,100 for the general election.

    Moreover, if Safeco Corporation and its Board of Directors acted knowingly and willfully in committing the violation that the Washington State Democrat Party has apparently alleged, this would constitute a federal felony under 2 USC 437g(d)(1)(A)(i), punishable by up to five years in a federal prison and substantial fines, since more than $25,000 was involved.

    I am considering whether or not to file a grievance with the Washington State Bar Association against both of you, requesting them to investigate the allegations made by the Washington State Democrat Party, determine whether any of them constitute violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and take appropriate action in the event that they do.

    I would appreciate any comments you may have on this matter, and in particular your views on the following subjects:

    (1) Were you a member of the Safeco Corporation Board of Directors when it approved the compensation packages that the Washington State Democrat Party claims constituted an illegal $17 million campaign contribution?

    (2) If so, did you vote to approve the compensation packages? If you did not personally vote to approve, did you take any formal action in the corporate records indicating your dissent or abstention from the Board of Directors decision?

    (3) Do the compensation packages approved by the Safeco Corporation Board of Directors constitute an illegal campaign contribution to Mike McGavick, whether for $17 million or any other amount?

    (4) Do all items of the compensation packages approved by the Safeco Corporation Board of Directors constitute legitimate compensation for Mike McGavick for the services that he has performed for Safeco Corporation?

    (5) If anything in the compensation packages was an illegal campaign contribution to Mike McGavick, did Safeco Corporation act knowingly and willfully in violating the federal campaign finance statutes referenced above?

    (6) If anything in the compensation packages was an illegal campaign contribution, did you and the other individual members of the Safeco Corporation Board of Directors act knowingly and willfully in violating the federal campaign finance statutes referenced above?

    Thank you for your careful attention in this matter.

  21. 21

    Goldy spews:

    Richard @18,

    The news conference was scheduled for 10:30 am, and the text of the complaint was embargoed until then. I’ve posted a link.

  22. 22

    Enis Scooter spews:

    you would think the State DemocRAT party could find someone better to notarize the complaint than a Republican who ran for the state legislature last year.

  23. 24

    Another TJ spews:

    C’mon Richard, you’re a better researcher than that

    The available evidence suggests otherwise.

  24. 25

    Hillary [JCH]Clinton spews:

    Kerry’s Tire-Slashers Sentenced

    [Democrats at play……..Nothing like a little felony from a few of the black Democrats’ finest!!!!!!!!! Read on!! I wonder if Jesse and Al will show up to bitch and whine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

    A congresswoman’s son and three Democratic campaign workers were sentenced Wednesday to four to six months in jail for slashing tires outside a Bush-Cheney campaign office on Election Day 2004.

    The men pleaded no contest in January to misdemeanor property damage. A fifth worker was found not guilty.

    “This case had to be a public example of what can happen when you interfere with voters’ rights,” said Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Michael Brennan, who rejected prosecutors’ recommendation of probation for the four men.

    The state Republican Party had rented more than 100 vehicles to give rides to voters and poll monitors on Nov. 2, 2004. The cars were parked outside a GOP campaign office when the tires were punctured. The vandalism left the drivers scrambling for new vehicles.

    Story Continues Below

    Among those sentenced Wednesday were Sowande A. Omokunde, the son of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore, D-Wisconsin, and Michael Pratt, the son of former acting Milwaukee Mayor Marvin Pratt.

    “I love my son very much. I’m very proud of him,” Moore said. “He’s accepted responsibility.”

    Omokunde was sentenced to four months in jail; Pratt and Lewis Caldwell of Milwaukee were sentenced to six months; and Lavelle Mohammad of Milwaukee

  25. 26

    Thomas Trainwinder spews:

    Terrible ploy by the dems. Getting in the stupid mud like they accuse the reps of.

    Can’t we just have a race where both sides discuss the issues and stop this stuff?

  26. 27

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    5

    “If the Democrats allege conduct by the Safeco Board of Directors that would constitute a felony under federal law, I intend to file a complaint with the Washington State Bar Association against all attorney board members who were serving at the time the compensation packages were approved.” Commentby Richard Pope— 4/26/06@ 9:56 am

    Go for it, Richard! Even if your mean-spirited personal attack on these attorneys don’t get you sued, it will prove for once and all what you’re made of: Turkey stuffing, not “the right stuff.”

    When it comes to legal retaliation against Richard Poop, Gary Locke might not be a deep pocket, but Judith Runstad sure as hell is! Married to one of the richest developers in Washington, she can easily afford to spend whatever it takes to put a penniless, officeless, pipsqueak like you in his place.

  27. 28

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    8

    Of course you can! Why should RepubliCONS have a monopoly on lying, cheating, and stealing? If they can do it, so can we! RepubliCONS want a monopoly on every fucking thing!

  28. 29

    Richard Pope spews:

    When it comes to legal retaliation against Richard Poop, Gary Locke might not be a deep pocket, but Judith Runstad sure as hell is! Married to one of the richest developers in Washington, she can easily afford to spend whatever it takes to put a penniless, officeless, pipsqueak like you in his place.

    Commentby Roger Rabbit— 4/26/06@ 10:05 am

    SO THE RABBIT IS SAYING THAT THE DEMOCRATS’ COMPLAINT TO THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION LACKS ANY MERIT WHATSOEVER. AND SINCE THE DEMOCRATS COMPLAINT LACKS ANY MERIT, I WOULD HAVE TO WORRY THAT LOCKE AND RUNSTAD WOULD SUE ME FOR COMPLAINING AGAINST THEM TO THE WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION BASED UPON THE SAME ALLEGATIONS THE DEMOCRATS ARE MAKING IN THEIR COMPLAINT.

  29. 30

    spitintheocean spews:

    You bet , Our devious and misrepresenting Cantwell is better than you misrepresenting and devious McGavick . Well at least they agree on one thing ; funding the Iraq war for years and years and years .

  30. 31

    Richard Pope spews:

    I will have to review the Democrat complaint to see if it has any merit. My understanding of federal election law is that an excessive federal campaign contribution is a FELONY under federal law. By contrast, excessive state campaign contributions in Washington (unlike, for example, Texas) are not felonies under Washington state law.

    My understanding is that the Safeco Board of Directors had a number of unanimous votes to approve this eight figure compensation for Mike McGavick. At least two of the 10 Safeco board members happen to be attorneys licensed to practice in Washington: Gary Locke and Judith Runstad:

    http://phx.corporate-ir.net/ph.....l-govBoard

    I haven’t looked at the other 8 Safeco bios in detail, or compared them to the Washington State Bar Association on-line database. But I will do so before taking my intended action.

    If the Democrats allege conduct by the Safeco Board of Directors that would constitute a felony under federal law, I intend to file a complaint with the Washington State Bar Association against all attorney board members who were serving at the time the compensation packages were approved.

    Hopefully my bar complaint will also get coverage in the local newspapers and other media.

    Safeco attorney board member Gary Locke served as a Democrat elected official for many members, including as a state representative, three years as King County Executive, and eight years as Governor.

    Safeco attorney board member Judith Runstad is a prominent Democrat activist and a major Democrat campaign contributor.

  31. 32

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Regardless of whether the Dems’ complaint has legal merit or the FEC can (or is willing to) do anything under federal election law about Safeco’s transparent maneuvering to pay for McGavick’s campaign, it’s a fact that Mike is an insurance lobbyist, an insurance CEO, and if elected will represent the insurance industry, not Washington voters.

    McGavick truly will be “Senator Safeco,” in every possible sense.

  32. 34

    rujax206 spews:

    Reposted from another thread…’cause it’s STILL TRUE:

    Why can’t I lie, cheat, and steal like the BananaRepublicans do (with impugnity).

    Isn’t it ILLEGAL or something?

    Or is it OK if you’re a member of the ruling JUNTA!

    Commentby rujax206— 4/25/06@ 10:36 am

  33. 35

    Richard Pope spews:

    2 USC 441a(a) — Federal contributions limited to $2,000 per election (this is adjusted for inflation, so it is now $2,100):

    (a) Dollar limits on contributions
    (1) Except as provided in subsection (i) of this section and section 441a–1 of this title, no person shall make contributions—
    (A) to any candidate and his authorized political committees with respect to any election for Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed $2,000;

  34. 36

    Brian spews:

    So it would appear that Roger in his haste to beat you down Richard, scored what can only be characterized as an “own goal”.

    Too funny…

  35. 37

    momus spews:

    Richard,

    When are you going to realize that Roger is a pathetic old man who, after having reired from a state Job, realizes that his only activity in live is posting on this blog.

    This is Goldy’s support group…. Pathetic liberals collecting state checks.

  36. 38

    Richard Pope spews:

    2 USC 437g(d) — Federal felony (five years in prison) to make illegal federal campaign contributions of $25,000 or more

    (d) Penalties; defenses; mitigation of offenses
    (1)
    (A) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this Act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure—
    (i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or
    (ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

  37. 39

    momus spews:

    left turn…

    And just think, Bush will pull a Clinton and give all on your list a presidential pardon as he leaves office.

  38. 40

    LeftTurn spews:

    Maybe there’s a chance we can get Mikey a cell next to all the other GOP criminals who are in or on their way to jail…

    Tommy DeLay
    Deke Cunningham
    Bill Frist
    Ken Lay
    Scooter Libby

    Well I better stop now, running out of room!

  39. 41

    Daddy Love spews:

    Richard,
    I think you should consult an attorney.

    I’d say that the corporate directors could probably have a defense if they were advised that their actions were legal.

  40. 42

    LiberalRedneck spews:

    Whoops! I see neither Locke nor Runstad are on the Safeco Board’s Compensation Committee. Republican Kerry Killinger is!

  41. 43

    LiberalRedneck spews:

    Wow, Richard. That is a bizarre stretch, even for a perennial gadfly like you. But, I’m sure your twisted little mind has already looked into all applicable federal laws, as well as Safeco’s corporate charter.

    I’m also sure the desperate clowns at SP will take your latest junk-law interpretation, and run with it as if your silly notion had any merit. That sure worked for SP during the whole recount thing, didn’t it?!

  42. 44

    LeftTurn spews:

    WoW! The GOP crybabies really can’t take it when you hit them between the eyes with their own tactics. And as you rightly point out Goldy, this complaint is over millions to their hundreds. And it is a good sign that we’re finally fighting back. We need to do more of this. We need to constantly attack them like they do us. And by the way, you’d think Alaska would be ashamed that their Senatorial candidate got caught like this.

    And one more thing, the race isn’t exactly tight. Even though Maria is a weak candidate, she’s still double digit ahead.

  43. 45

    momus spews:

    What an absolute load of crap….

    So Mchavick is playing by Maria’s rules? Is this you point Goldy?

    Maria cantwell: Cantwell violated federal election law by securing an under-collateralized loan and by using the proceeds of two loans secured at rates below those available to the general public to finance her campaign. The appearance of impropriety is further underscored by the fact that Cantwell’s committee kept the illegal loans secret by failing to properly disclose the loan terms in a timely manner as strictly required by federal election law.

  44. 46

    momus spews:

    The Associated Press account of the Cantwell campaign financing irregularities noted that Cantwell had made campaign finance reform “her signature issue.” Had the voters of Washington known in mid-October that Cantwell was using an under-collateralized loan and loans with below market rates to subsidize her campaign in the final weeks, both clear violations of FEC regulations, the outcome of the election may very well have shifted. And a shift of less than 1,500 votes would have changed the outcome.
    It would be difficult to imagine a more compelling example of abuse of election laws than one in which the outcome of an election was affected by both multiple violations of election law followed by a failure to disclose information which is clearly required to be disclosed.

    None of the essential facts set forth in this complaint are in dispute.

    Nor are the legal questions difficult to answer.

    Put simply:

    Is a line of credit for $600,000 fully collateralized when it is secured by an asset worth just $375,000? Of course not. The law requires that the asset used as collateral be equal to or great than the amount of the loan or credit at the time the transaction takes place.
    Is lender’s prime rate as the interest on the two loans in this case the bank’s usual and customary interest rate? Of course not and any examination of six-figure loans provided by the bank in question last year would easily demonstrate that this was a very favorable and unusual rate.
    Is a filing of a Schedule C-1 by a campaign on January 31, 2001 a timely filing when FEC regulations clearly require the filing in mid-October? Of course not.
    The fact that Cantwell subsequently was unable to pay back her loans on a timely basis and had to renegotiate the terms only underscores the seriousness of the violations and the very reasons the laws were enacted in the first place.
    Given the compelling fact pattern and the very real possibility that the violations of law alleged in this complaint may well have affected the outcome of a Senate race and potentially the balance of power in the Senate itself, the public is entitled to a full and prompt investigation of this matter. Anything less would make a mockery of federal election law.

  45. 47

    Richard Pope spews:

    The December 6, 2005 separation contract indicates it was approved by the Board of Directors, as opposed to merely the Compensation Committee.

    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/ed.....dex101.htm

    Dwight Pelz’s complaint is about the December 6, 2005 separation contract. Pelz claims it gave Mike McGavick $17 million that he was not previously contractually entitled to.

  46. 48

    Puddybud spews:

    Danno, you mean rudejacks is the FUWA bubbleboy along with being Goldy’s Northwest Division of Lunatic Moonbat’s #1 mental midget?