[NOTE: Read the update below. It appears I was mostly wrong. My bad, but I own it.]
When Rep. Dave Reichert reported about $100,000 in illegal, excess contributions a couple weeks back, did he think nobody would notice?
I was skimming through Reichert’s quarterly FEC report, when I came upon something quite odd. The campaign contribution limit for House races this cycle is an aggregate $2,100 from individuals and $5,000 from PACs for each the primary and the general elections. And yet I found contribution after contribution in excess of those amounts.
In all, I found 47 individual contributions in excess of the $2,100 individual limit — as much as $4,700 each — and most of these individuals had given excess contributions for both the primary and the general elections. In addition, I found 9 PAC contributions apparently in excess of the $5,000 aggregate limit, including notable WA state business leaders like Microsoft, Boeing and Weyerhaeuser.
Add it all up and Reichert’s haul of excess contributions totals over $97,000. And that’s just from donors who contributed during the previous quarter… I’ve yet to go back to earlier reports to see if other donors had already exceeded their aggregate limit as well.
Of course, Reichert didn’t just solicit all this extra cash and figure the FEC wouldn’t notice. The PDFs of his itemized receipts include the following notation:
Limit Increased Due to Opponent’s
Spending (2 U.S.C. 441a(i)(441a-1)
Oh. So there’s an explanation. No biggie, I guess. Until you look up 441a-1 and find that this explanation is a load of shit.
What Reichert is referring to is something called the “Millionaires’ Amendment,” which allows candidates to exceed the normal contribution limits, under certain circumstances, when an opponent spends personal funds in excess of an established threshold. The FEC publishes a brochure, which clearly explains the provisions:
The provisions of the Millionaires’ Amendment may, in certain circumstances, increase the contribution limits for House and Senate candidates facing opponents who spend personal funds in excess of certain threshold amounts. […] For House candidates, the threshold amount is $350,000. 11 CFR 400.9(b). House candidates whose opponent’s personal spending exceeds that threshold may trigger increased limits.
Um… last time I checked, Darcy Burner had spent less than $47,000 of her own money to jumpstart her campaign — nowhere near the $350,000 threshold. And in any case, at the time Reichert started soliciting his excess contributions, Burner hadn’t yet reported $350,000 in total contributions, from any source.
And of course, the contribution limit increase doesn’t just come automatically; there is a process. Candidates are required to estimate in their Statement of Candidacy the amount of personal funds in excess of the threshold they intend to expend, and Burner’s statement estimates exactly $0.00. Furthermore, candidates are required to send a copy of Form 10 to both the FEC and their opponents within 24-hours of exceeding the threshold; of course, Burner has never filed such a form, because she’s more than $300,000 shy of the mark.
And finally…
An opposing candidate’s campaign-related expenditures from personal funds in excess of the triggering threshold do not automatically result in increased contribution limits. The Millionaires’ Amendment also takes into account fundraising by the campaigns. Campaigns must use the “opposition personal funds amount” formula to determine whether an opposing candidate has spent sufficient personal funds in comparison to the amounts raised by the campaigns to trigger increased contribution limits
A candidate with a significant fundraising advantage over a self-financed opponent might not receive an increased contribution limit. In this way, the regulations avoid giving increased contribution limits to candidates whose campaigns have a significant fundraising advantage over their opponents.
Reichert has outraised Burner $1.4 million to $540,000 thus far… so I’m not sure the limit increase would have been triggered even if Burner had hit the threshold.
I’m no FEC expert, so maybe I’m missing something obvious here… but it’s hard to believe that the Reichert campaign itself actually believes that it qualifies for increased contribution limits under the Millionaires’ Amendment. So what could possibly explain this discrepancy?
Well, I suppose it could just be a mistake. Because donors don’t always understand the limits, campaigns inadvertently receive excess contributions all the time, and there’s a mechanism in place for returning them in a timely matter without penalty. But 56 contributions totaling nearly $100,000 in a single quarter? What’s the chance of that?
And, oh yeah… the vast majority of these excess contributions were recorded in the final couple weeks of the quarter, while all nine of the excess PAC contributions were recorded on March 31… the very last of the reporting period.
Coincidence? I think not.
Here’s what I think happened. The Reichert campaign got spooked by what they correctly perceived to be a late quarter fundraising surge by Burner, and so they booked tens of thousands of dollars in excess contributions during the final days — knowing that they would eventually have to refund the money — simply to make the fundraising gap look less embarrassing. The goal was to prevent Burner from gaining the credibility and momentum she had earned.
It didn’t work.
A few weeks back the WA State GOP took another shot at stemming Burner’s momentum by supposedly filing an FEC complaint against her campaign. According to the official GOP press release:
Diane Tebelius, Washington State GOP chairman, asked the FEC to look into alleged violations of federal campaign reporting laws including receipt of excessive contributions and failure to properly report disbursements.
This complaint paints a picture of a campaign that is unable to comply with federal election rules and regulations. Earlier this year Burner pledged to adhere to the highest ethical standards if elected to Congress. This latest revelation makes that pledge sound hollow. “Darcy Burner makes a mockery of her own pledge with her inability or unwillingness to follow even the most basic campaign finance rules,” commented Chairman Tebelius.
The GOP’s complaint was trivial and frivolous, centering on a video, legally produced by a volunteer. But if Tebelius wants to mock Burner for failing to report volunteer work she wasn’t required to report, what can we say about Reichert? His campaign not only failed to comply with federal election rules and regulations, it flouted them, apparently and intentionally soliciting nearly $100,000 in excess contributions, simply to gain a PR advantage.
Reichert wasn’t merely gaming the system… he was lying. And it gives us a good idea of what we can expect from his campaign from here on out.
UPDATE:
As it turns out, it looks like I may have misunderstood the “Election Cycle to Date” field to refer to the election cycle to date, per election. Take a look at this section of the form, and you can see my confusion:
Hmm. Others have suggested this field may actually represent the aggregate across both elections, and looking at the way the numbers add up, I’m leaning in that direction. My bad.
So… the amount of the excess contributions may be much less than I had assumed. Two individuals who have contributed totals of $4,700 and $4,600 respectively (over the combined limit of $2,100) plus two PACs, Microsoft and Boeing, who have contributed an aggregate of $15,000 and $11,000 respective (over the combined limit of $10,000).
I guess I was so caught up in the bogus reference to the Millionaires’ Amendment, that I didn’t see the forest for the trees.
Sure, it’s embarrassing to get things like this wrong, but I’m man enough to admit it. So rather than delete the post, I’m leaving it up here for all to see my mistake and my correction. If anything, this is a great example of the self-correcting feature of blogging, when practiced honestly. This is a kind of open-source journalism, and any time I truly make a mistake, my readers are there to correct me and set the record straight.
Excellent post Mr. Goldstein. Can an individual citizen file a complaint with the FEC, or must the opposing candidate initiate any paper work? Can you forward this information to Ms. Burners campaign headquarters?
Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said Tuesday that he will tell Congress that close to 100,000 children of illegal immigrants in the county collect $276 million in annual welfare benefits. Antonovich, who is in Washington with the Board of Supervisors, will meet with congressional representatives and provide information about the impact of illegal immigration on county services. […………………………………………………………………………..PAY MORE TAXES!!!!! PAY MORE TAXES!!!!!!!! hehe, JCH]
What would a day without illegal aliens really be like? Let’s try to imagine it… OBGYN wards in Denver would have 24% fewer deliveries and Los Angeles’s maternity-ward deliveries would drop by 40% and maternity billings to Medi-Cal would drop by 66%. Youth gangs would see their membership drop by 50% in many states, and in Phoenix, child-molestation cases would drop by 34% and auto theft by 40%. Finally, Democrats would lose hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of illegal votes. [……………………….More Democrat victim voters on the way!!! Turning the USA into Baja Norte!!!!!]
[JCH] deliberately appeals to the lowest common denominator. I sure hope JCH is Kevin Carns. The viciousness is there as well as the lack of intelligence.
Kevin Carns is like Karl Rove , except without the talent.
Yes private citizens can file complaints for FEC violations and I will file one in the morning. Sheriff Davie has trouble with women AND lawful fundraising. Is it even possible for the GOP to find one candidate who isn’t a fucking crook and liar? One?
Good investigation Goldy!
And good for you Ogg, on posting before our degenerate inbred trolls try and spin their way out of yet another GOP blatant attempt of disregtarding federal election laws.
BAD INVESTIGATION GOLDY — YOU HAVE SHOT FIRST AND ASKED QUESTIONS LATER
First of all, we have two elections in Washington — a primary election and a general election. Federal law allows $2,100 for each election for individuals and I believe $5,000 for PAC’s for each election.
It is common for folks with money to give the entire combined amount early in the campaign. The candidate simply has to keep the general election portion in the bank and not touch it until after the primary election.
There are also a number of folks who have given to Darcy Burner, who are over $2,100, due to making some or all of the general election contribution as well.
First of all, the Eastside DFA producing a video for Darcy now looks like even mousier nuts than before. God these guys have chutzpah!
Secondly, who’s filing the complaint against the Reichert campaign?
6.
So why the reference to the limit increase?
I only found three contributions totalling above the combined $4,200 for individuals and $10,000 for PACS for the primary and general elections combined:
John Bramblett $4,700
Microsoft Corp PAC $15,000
Jeffrey Wright $4,600
http://disclosure.nictusa.com/.....193/sa/ALL
I may have skipped a couple of them, but it is far less than the 56 contributions Goldy pointed out, based on considering only the primary election contribution limit.
Federal law requires candidates to deposit all contributions very shortly after they are received. Generally, the deposits must be made before there is really the opportunity to input and analyze the information. It is common for candidates to end up with more than the maximum limit from a given contributor when there are multiple contributions made at different points in time. In such instance, the candidate will refund the excess contribution once the accounting report comes out and the check has cleared. So there is nothing unusual with Dave Reichert having three excess contributors. I imagine that Reichert’s campaign refunded the excess money shortly after generating the accounting report for the 1st quarter of 2006 on April 15, 2006.
Looking at Darcy Burner’s FEC contribution reports, I see several individuals who are over $2,100 — including a certain ERIC OEMIG, who is at $3,000:
http://disclosure.nictusa.com/.....734/sa/ALL
So when is Goldy going to admit that he has been a total DUMB ASS and HORSE’S ASS on this recent amazing discovery of this?
Goldy has made a much bigger fool of himself than any of the minor faux pas things he has ever accused Stefan of.
You’re getting to be a jack-leg here, Richard.
On page 11 & 12 of Reichert’s FEC report there are two contributions by John Bramblet, both for the 2006 general, one for $3500.00 and one from $4700.00.
In both cases the notation Goldy spoke of appears.
Limit increased due to Opponent’s Spending (2 U. S. C. 441a(i)/441a-1).
Goldy’s charge is that is bullshit based on the amount Burner has spent of her own money, and because she raised less that Reichert in any case.
You’re cherry picking through the report smells bad.
If you’re going to defend Reichert, respond to the actual charge, not your strawman.
GOLDY IS A DUMB HORSE’S ASS!
Just take a look at the PDF image of Darcy Burner’s FEC report:
http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-.....076402.pdf
Every single one of her contributions has the words:
“Limit Increased Due to Opponent’s Spending (2 U.S.C. 441a(i)(441a-1)”
Darcy has 49 contributions over $2100, compared to 47 for Dave. Good catch there Goldy.
GOLDY IS A DUMB HORSE’S ASS!
Just take a look at the PDF image of Baghdad Jim McDermott’s FEC report:
http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-.....040648.pdf
Every single one of his contributions has the words:
“Limit Increased Due to Opponent’s Spending (2 U.S.C. 441a(i)(441a-1)”
DOES BAGHDAD JIM McDERMOTT EVEN HAVE AN OPPONENT? If so, is that opponent spending anything?
Here is a clue for overzealous Horse’s Asses:
U.S. House candidates DO NOT file the PDF images that the FEC website generates. Their reports are all filed ELECTRONICALLY.
The FEC generates the PDF images from the electronic report data.
EVERY SINGLE PDF FORM GENERATED BY THE FEC FOR EVERY SINGLE HOUSE CANDIDATE HAPPENS TO CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE IN EVERY SINGLE CONTRIBUTION ENTRY:
“Limit Increased Due to Opponent’s Spending (2 U.S.C. 441a(i)(441a-1)”
IF THIS PROVISION APPLIED, THE FEC WOULD PROBABLY GENERATE A “X” OR “YES” IN SOME PROXIMITY TO THIS VERBIAGE.
Granted, the Federal Election Commission should change the format of its PDF images for the electronically filed reports.
Probably the provisions of (2 U.S.C. 441a(i)(441a-1) very rarely end up applying. But this language appears on every single PDF report for every single candidate.
It can be misleading for overzealous Horse’s Asses, as has been recently demonstrated.
Maybe the FEC can contract with a real computer expert — such as STEFAN SHARKANSKY — to generate PDF image reports that make more sense and can’t be misinterpreted by the self-righteous.
Richard,
I have been blogging for almost two years now, and have been extraordinarily reliable and credible. When I have made mistakes, I have admitted them.
I understood fully that there were separate limits for the primary and the general, but misunderstood the “Election Cycle to Date” field to indicate the aggregate total for each. I have updated my post to indicate my error, including adding a note at the top.
Now you can just joyously call me a dumbass if you want, but if you ask me, this is how blogging is supposed to work. I posted something, I got feedback that I was wrong, and then I admitted it and corrected my mistake. And all in a couple of hours.
And by the way, as always, I posted extensive links to all my source material so that anybody could double-check my work.
So yes, it’s a bit embarrassing, but then, the only way to avoid embarrassment is to never stick your neck out on the line.
None of this changes the facts:
REICHERT TOOK EXCESSIVE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PACS.
This is on top of:
*The $20,000 he took from Tom DeLay’s ARM PAC.
*The $3,000 he took from the same oil company he was whining about last week (Exxon).
This guy stinks.
Goldy @ 19
You still haven’t ‘fessed up to the fact that ALL electronic FEC reports have the language:
“Limit Increased Due to Opponent’s Spending (2 U.S.C. 441a(i)(441a-1)”
I would expect to see another update where you EAT THOSE WORDS as well.
So far, you have only retracted down from 56 excess contributions to 4 excess contributions for Reichert.
REICHERT DID NOT MAKE A BOGUS REFERENCE TO THE MILLIONAIRE’S AMENDMENT.
THAT LANGUAGE APPEARS ON EVERY FEC ELECTRONIC REPORT.
ADMIT THIS ERROR TOO!
Nice try Goldy. You really should change your site DUMBASS.ORG
Goldy,
It may help to look at PAPER FEC reports filed by the small minority of U.S. House candidates who do not raise enough money to require electronic filing. Such as Peter (Brokeback Mountain) Goldmark:
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00417535
Goldmark managed to raise ALL OF $8,800.00 for his campaign during 2005. $4,200.00 of this came from his wife Wendy Goldmark. And another $2,000.00 from Jay Inslee’s campaign. Pretty impressive fundraising.
On the paper forms, the language “Limit Increased Due to Opponent’s Spending (2 U.S.C. 441a(i)(441a-1)” also appears, but with a check mark box to the left of it. If this applies, then a “X” would be placed in the box.
Likewise, the same language “Limit Increased Due to Opponent’s Spending (2 U.S.C. 441a(i)(441a-1)” appears on every PDF generated from an electronic filing.
In the event that it actually did apply, the PDF image would have an “X” to the left of the language as well. Needless to say, no such “X” appears on any of Reichert’s contributions in this location.
Goldy;
You did what you were supposed to do. You ‘fessed up, and in this crazed comment-o-sphere, that takes guts.
That means, unlike sites on the other side of the fence that I need not mention, that you retain your credibility over the long run.
You’re a better man today than most of us will ever be when faced with one’s errors after giving a proper slicing-n-dicing to one’s opponents.
If only it would be that the rest of us here will have the guts to do the same if faced with the same situation.
Richard @21,
I would have no idea if that is true. I’ve never looked at FEC reports before. If I had known that (assuming it is true), perhaps I would not have misunderstood the “Election Cycle To Date” field.
Make this into whatever you want Richard. I made a mistake and printed a correction. Go pour through my nearly 1600 posts and search for the factual errors.
This was an honest mistake, quickly corrected, and I don’t think it detracts from my long track record.
All that said, Reichert did except several excess contributions, including $5,000 excess from Microsoft. I’ve since been told by other treasures that this is almost always caught before depositing, because it’s a pain in the ass to refund.
Goldy still hasn’t ‘fessed up to the fact that Dave Reichert did not use the Millionaire’s Amendment in any way.
When will Goldy retract this glaring factual error in his retraction:
“I guess I was so caught up in the bogus reference to the Millionaires’ Amendment, that I didn’t see the forest for the trees.”
Or at least admit that the only BOGUS REFERENCE was his own?
Richard @23,
I made the mistake of thinking the PDF was a facsimile of the paper form, and apparently it is not. There is no check box on the PDF.
If you want to accuse me of anything, accuse me of ignorance on this point. But again, there was no attempt to deceive.
Gold was fundamentally right: REICHERT TOOK EXCESSIVE CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PACS.
It smacks of desperation at the end of the quarter. He was quaking in his boots because of Darcy’s fundraising numbers and managed to get a bunch of PACs to jump over the cliff with him.
More evidence the GOP is desperate.
Excess contributions are usually deposited, then partially refunded — even when they are obviously over the limit.
There was a scam, pulled off a few times on the past, back when the limit was $1,000 per election. Someone would write a check for $1,500 — let’s say to Al Gore for President (i.e. primary campaign). Gore’s campaign would immediately send a $500 excess refund check to the supposed contributor. The $500 “refund” check would be good of course, but the $1,500 “contribution” check would bounce like a superball.
Campaigns have wised up since then. Excess contributions are almost always deposited, with the excess being refunded some time later, when the accounting report is finished and it is clear that the contribution check was good.
Goldy @ 28
But you STILL haven’t corrected your posting on this subject. It still reads as if Reichert was improperly putting the “Millionaire’s Amendment” exception on his FEC report, regardless of whether he had 56 excess contributions, or only four.
When is your posting going to admit that EVERY SINGLE ELECTRONIC FEC REPORT looks exactly like this when printed out as a PDF?
Richard…
Whatever.
I’ve consistently shown you more courtesy and respect than you’ve ever shown me. You want to rub my face in it, have at it.
(But hell if I’m ever going to vote for you again, even as a joke.)
“Of course, Reichert didn’t just solicit all this extra cash and figure the FEC wouldn’t notice. The PDFs of his itemized receipts include the following notation:
Limit Increased Due to Opponent’s
Spending (2 U.S.C. 441a(i)(441a-1)
Oh. So there’s an explanation. No biggie, I guess. Until you look up 441a-1 and find that this explanation is a load of shit.
What Reichert is referring to is something called the “Millionaires’ Amendment,” which allows candidates to exceed the normal contribution limits, under certain circumstances, when an opponent spends personal funds in excess of an established threshold.”
WHEN IS GOLDY GOING TO ADMIT — IN THE MAIN POSTING ITSELF — THAT THIS PORTION OF HIS POSTING WAS ALSO JUST PLAIN WRONG?
So let me get this straight…
Pope-a-dope, as usual, making allowances for the GOP that he’d NEVER FUCKING EVER make for the Dems said,
“Federal law requires candidates to deposit all contributions very shortly after they are received. Generally, the deposits must be made before there is really the opportunity to input and analyze the information. It is common for candidates to end up with more than the maximum limit from a given contributor when there are multiple contributions made at different points in time. In such instance, the candidate will refund the excess contribution once the accounting report comes out and the check has cleared. So there is nothing unusual with Dave Reichert having three excess contributors. I imagine that Reichert’s campaign refunded the excess money shortly after generating the accounting report for the 1st quarter of 2006 on April 15, 2006.”
So then I assume when and if we ever find the same circumstance for Dems, that Pope-A-Dope will be equally forgiving? Right.
Who cares about this when today’s a day we find out that common criminal Lush Flimbaugh has to pee in a cup for his probation officer? HE HE!
Hey look at this – 200 fucking times!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....h_abramoff
That’s how often Jackoff Abramoff went to the White House in 10 months. And Bush & Company says they don’t know the dude? Yeah, like I could go to the White House 200 times and just sort of hang out and nobody would care? Man these fuckers’ lies just keep getting bigger.
OK, the Eastside DFA flap returns to it’s previous mouse nuts rating.
House Candidates and Presidential candidates file electronically with the Federal Election Commission.
The US Senate still hasn’t entered the computer age. They have paper election forms sent to the Secretary of the Senate who then sends the paper forms to the FEC. I wrote a blog recently on this http://www.majorityrules.org/b.....using.html. Turns out McGavick’s financial forms weren’t reported on the FEC website until almost 2 weeks later than the April 14th deadline. It wasn’t his fault but shows the Senate is not trying to insure timely disclosure.
The Senate should join the computer age and let Senators file their forms directly with the FEC.
In addition it is nonsense that candidates for Congress only file quarterly. It should be monthly. We do it without any problem in Washington state by requiring monthly reporting and its lets the public better track who is giving what to who and when.
I urge you to contact your Congressional Representatives to support a more open disclosure of campaign comtributions.
You can start by going to this website.http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=611
and entering your zipcode.
Richard… take a Valium. Goldy ‘fessed up that the reference to the millionaires’ amendment was bogus. What part of “my mistake” and his retraction are you not getting? Or are you still the same supercilious prick you were back on the ASUW Board of Control? Boy, some of your contemporaries like Bob Ferguson and Heidi Wills managing to actually WIN elections outside of a student body vote must burn you up inside, huh?
Thanks for your diligence in setting GOldy straight, Richard.
Now go back to counting the jars of urine in your closet.
Gee, I’m still waiting for the Republican Party to apologize for their faulty interpretation of state law and their corresponding wasting of substantial amounts of the taxpayer money in the challenge to the governor’s election. Not to mention their calculated “press release of the day” to dribble their allegations out over several months time – never bothering to withdraw or correct them as they are proven false.
The Democrats did what they were supposed to – paid the money for the recount, and had it refunded to them when they came up the winner. The Republicans never paid a dime for their erronious challenge.
Richard, thanks for the correction (I always appreciate accuracy), but give it a break. You made your point, and Goldy corrected his posting. Enough said.
-So rather than delete the post, I’m leaving it up here for all to see my mistake and my correction. –
Unlike the clowns at SP who routinely post blatantly false information, and spend most of their waking hours following some totally bizarre conspiracy theory involving Dean Logan and the Illuminati – yet refuse to EVER admit they were wrong.
In fact, if you make the mistake of pointing out how wrong some of their crap is, at least one of two things will happen:
1)Stefan will immediately remove your post
or
2) a gaggle of Christian cultists will pile on, and try and change the subject away from the bad information Stefan posted.
Try it! It’s fun!
Richard–
Great catch…..but I think you have made your point with Goldy. It takes a real man to admit he was guilty of READY, FIRE, AIM!!!! And while I have argued and poked fun at Goldy more times than I care to think about, I have always found him quick to correct errors. Of course, when Goldy is standing their with no pants on and you point out that he is publicly exposing himself, what choice does he have when his only pair of britches are at the laundry!!
The Democrats did what they were supposed to – paid the money for the recount, and had it refunded to them when they came up the winner. The Republicans never paid a dime for their erronious challenge.
Commentby rhp6033— 5/1/06@ 4:15 pm
The Republicans had to pay the statutory filing fee for their election contest lawsuit, as well as their own lawyer’s fees. They still owe some money for lawyer’s fees, but they paid far more money than the Democrats had to put up to have an election recount. In addition, the Republicans had to pay at least $10,000 of the Democrats’ court costs for losing.
Maybe you think the Republicans should have had to pay more — but it was far more than “A DIME” as you put it. The Republicans are out TENS OF MILLIONS OF DIMES as a result of all of the election related lawsuits.
1. Richard, can you point to anywhere, other than the “statutory filing fees”, where the Republican Party reimbursed the state for the costs to the courts of this state for their failed challenge? We both know the “statutory filing fee” is minimal, it barely reimburses the court for the time and supplies it takes them to open a new file on the case. As a party interested in avoiding waste in government, shouldn’t they have reimbursed the county and state for the extra costs imposed by their challenge? I know they weren’t REQUIRED to do so under the statute, but if the Democrats had lost, I am sure the Republicans and their talk-radio heads would certainly have skewered the Democrats if they had failed to do so.
2. As the losing party the Republicans were certainly required to reimburse the Democratic Party for its out-of-pocket court costs (i.e., court reporter fees, etc).
3. But the Republicans didn’t remiburse the Democratic Party for its substantial attorney’s fees, forced upon them by the challenge. As I pointed out before they may not have been required to do so per statute or court rule, but that doesn’t make it right, either. As for the Republican Party’s own attorney’s fees – they chose to make the fight, so don’t expect me to cry over the burden of their own fees which they voluntarily incurred.
RE 43: yEE-hAW…
Goldy, you can stop apologizing about this and move on.
The biggest issue that I think this brings up is the value of having the blogospheric equivalent of a copy desk. Say whatever you want about newspapers, but one valuable aspect of having an army of editors is that many (and hopefully most) of the biggest mistakes never make it into print.
The next time you come up with a controversial story I hope you show a draft to someone with expertise in that area. If you fancy yourself as a journalist you can’t rely completely on your readers to correct factual errors — that will inevitably erode confidence in your work.
Journalism is a team sport. That’s why loners tend to not be very successful at it unless they are absolutely brilliant.
Speaking about excessive contributions- the mother of all excessive contributions was made by peter Paul to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign. While Hillary denied taking more than $ 1.2 million from Paul in the washington Post and in 3 FEC reports, her treasurer Grossman finally fessed up to the FEC in a Conciliation Agreement on december 19, 2005 where he admitted hiding more than $721,000 Paul donated through two holding companies (paraversal and excelsior) and he filed a fourth amended FEC report on January 30, 2006, for Event 39. The media did not report this admission and Hillary refuses to refund the money she vowed never to take! See http://www.hillcap.org for all documents