Satterberg/Rowley contribution scam not politics as usual

Over on Slog, Josh has cross-referenced Satterberg donors with those who have also recently contributed large, lump sum contributions to the WSRP. What did he find?

[P]eople who made big donations to Satterberg, the Republican candidate for KC Prosecutor, subsequently made large donations to a Washington State GOP account that has now downloaded about $125,000 to Satterberg.

Of the 18 donations to this GOP account, 13 donations were made by big Satterberg supporters. Or put another way: 78 percent of the money in the account, $139,500 out of $176,700, came from Satterberg supporters.

Was the GOP soliciting money from Satterberg donors, telling them the money would go directly to Satterberg—and then making good on that promise? That would be illegal: Parties cannot earmark donations for specific candidates. The GOP denies they earmarked the money. […] It certainly looks like Satterberg donors and the GOP are circumventing contribution rules…

Yes, it certainly does. Of the 18 donations to the WSRP “Non-exempt” committee, one donation for $200 was made in April of 2007; the other $176,500 was dumped in over the past few weeks.

17 wealthy contributors laundering $176,500 through the WSRP and into Satterberg’s account during the final days of the campaign is not politics as usual — it is a blatant and cynical effort to skirt our state’s campaign finance laws. By comparison, the Dems “non-exempt” committee has raised money from over 4,300 donors, mostly in contributions of $100 or less… and no large, lump sum, last minute contributions. The difference couldn’t be more stark.

Think about it: the WSRP committee had only $4,000 in the bank as recently as October 9. How could the $125,000 since spent on Satterberg have been raised for anything else? It defies belief to argue that Rowley, Selig and McCaw wrote checks totaling $100,000 for any other purpose. It just doesn’t pass the smell test!

What the fuck does it take for our dailies to connect the dots?

UPDATE:
Bill Sherman will be my guest tonight at 7PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO. Tune in to find out if he’s as angry as I am.

Comments

  1. 1

    klake spews:

    Bill Sherman will be my guest tonight at 7PM on News/Talk 710-KIRO. Tune in to find out if he’s as angry as I am.
    No Goldy he can’t be as angry due to the fact that he is a Democrat. Kind a like a red neck to dumb to know better and lack the knowledge to know they are laughing at him not at his jokes. The Democrats in Seattle are to inbreeded even with many degree’s are a lower species.

  2. 3

    mark spews:

    And I suppose you are equally angry at Hillary Clintons
    fundraising. Like it passes the smell test.

  3. 4

    correctnotright spews:

    Thanks for taking this on Goldy. It may be a case of too little too late – the Seattle times already endorsed Satterberg as the “non-partisan” candidate. The taint of the republican party is this state knows no bounds. They even eat their own – like John McKay – when the honest politicians won’t do their bidding.
    this is just another example of a republican parading as non-partisan and putting himself in the pocket of a far right party with no moral compass. the party of corruption (GOP = POC) only gets introuble when it’s anti-gay lawmakers reveal their true colors.

  4. 6

    Thomas Trainwinder spews:

    Also, he said he’ll be non-partisan..shouldn’t we take him at his word?

  5. 8

    SeattleR spews:

    I truly believe this is a non-story. Unfortunately, with the Stranger and HA pounding on it so hard over the weekend, they’ll probably get their stupid story in the Times on the eve of the election, which is what they’re hoping for. I hope the Times isn’t naive enough to fall for this.

  6. 9

    harry poon spews:

    # 6 — No. He’s already demonstrated that partisan gain trumps the law for him.

    Even George Bush, unwittingly quoting Pete Townsend, has said it all: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, UUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHH! UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHH! UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! ‘Won’t git fooled agin’!!!”

  7. 10

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    With a Republican prosecutor and a Republican attorney general looking the other way, they’re not worried about the law.

  8. 11

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    What will Satterberg’s excuse for not prosecuting this case be? Insufficient evidence?

  9. 12

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    As long as Republicans run law enforcement in this state, Republicans will continue committing election crimes with impunity.

  10. 14

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    Dan Satterberg has joined Lori Sotelo, Jane Balogh, and 1,000 unnamed felons in the rogue’s gallery of Republican election crooks.

  11. 15

    spews:

    @13…RR…

    What crime? What statutory authority?

    Here’s what bugs me about all this: you seek to criminalize political differences such that only the way you want it done is legal, and this not by statute or judicial precedent, but by persecuting via political prosecution of results you don’t like, tactics that confound you, or ideas with which you disagree.

    Living proof…rabbits do indeed goose-step.

    The Piper

  12. 16

    My Goldy Itches spews:

    Take the exact same issues and facts, then place a “D” next to Satterberg’s name and Goldy would be simultaneously defending Satterberg and bitching about Republican “corruption” and their attempts to “steal” the election.

  13. 17

    JANE BALOUGH'S DOG spews:

    Man with all this talk of election fraud from the leftines it can only mean one thing…. They are scared they are going to lose again. I guess we will be hearing more lies about diebold voting machines in 2008. hehehehehe

  14. 18

    TDOG spews:

    Jesus, Rabbit- you actually are obtuse, aren’t you? How many times does it need to be explained to you that Sotelo was not a chargeable case? Not even your neophyte friend Bill could have found a way to charge her and stay true to his oath as an Officer Of The Court.

    Oh- my bad. Apparently lofty things like oaths, and burdens of proof, or heck- even the need to have something more than a baseless and shrill opinion behind an accusation- are foreign concepts to you.

    Oy….

  15. 19

    Prosecutor spews:

    I am a prosecutor. I work with prosecutors. Every prosecutor I know is praying that Bill Sherman, an inexperienced hack who has left our office twice to try and jumpstart his political career, doesn’t take over. He has tried very few cases, has never supervised another prosecutor, has never spoken with the family of a murder victim or worked with a kid who has been sexually abused. He has used our office for his own political gain, and he is riding the partisianship game as far as it will take him. If he is elected, he will abandon our office in a few short years to try something else to satiate his ambition. The idea that Sherman would have prosecuted any of the cases he now criticizes and differently is a joke. He knows nothing of those cases; he hasn’t read the discovery, spoken with witnesses, or done any of the things Satterberg had to do. Instead, Sherman ignores any prosecutorial judgment he may have earned in his less than three years with our office and abandons all notions of proof, evidence, etc. I guess they don’t make great sound bytes…

  16. 20

    Prosecutor spews:

    correction:
    Should read, “The idea that Sherman would have prosecuted any of the cases he now criticizes ANY differently…”

  17. 21

    My Goldy Itches spews:

    19 – The issues you raise don’t matter much to the left. All that matters to them is that the office holder has a “D” next to his name.

  18. 22

    whocaresaboutblueorred spews:

    Is this really a story?

    The KCRP could essentially give money to two candidates… Ms. Hague or Mr. Satterberg. Shouldn’t we all be applauding them for giving it all the Mr. Satterberg?

    If they gave it to Ms. Hague, then the HA regulars would all be up in arms that they were funding the campaign of a drunk and liar. Give it a rest.

    I don’t think it is earth shattering news that a candidate accepts money from his party. Heck, I’m sure Mr. Satterberg would have accepted money from the DNC… as Mr. Sherman would have taken money from the KCRP if they offered it.

    Mr. Satterberg has never said he was “non-partisan”. He has always ran as a Republican. What he has is broad “bi-partisan” support. What he has maintained and promised is that he will run a “non-partisan” office and seek to make the position “non-partisan” for future elections.

    I recall the first time that both Mr. Sherman and Mr. Satterberg appeared on Goldy’s radio show together. Goldy accused Mr. Satterberg of resorting to dirty politics when he merely pointed out that Mr. Sherman was not being honest about his time at the prosecutor’s office (Mr. Sherman claimed working as a prosecutor for 4 years when in fact it was 3).

    Goldy, take your own advice. Your transparent attempt to do whatever it takes to get the “D” in office is equivalent to, in your own words, “a metal chair to the back of the head.”

    Your hypocrisy is staggering. How do you look yourself in the mirror every day?

  19. 23

    GUEST -FORMER DEFENSE ATTORNEY spews:

    the R. rats are grinding their teeth to a high tempo – Goldy, you struck pay dirt

    it is always their money
    it is always that they are right

    vote for mental breakdowns in R. rats, vote for Sherman

  20. 24

    Redundantly spews:

    If Mrs. Gregoire wants to appoint a special prosecutor, then I suggest said prosecutor take a look at Mrs. Gregoire’s books vis a vis the Washington Democratic Party.

    They have funnelled a few million themselves. I am not saying it is right, I am saying it is so.