HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Scott Brown campaign miss...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 06:59 AM

Scott Brown campaign missing financial information on $2M in donations

WASHINGTON, D.C —

Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown’s re-election campaign has failed to disclose employment information for contributors who collectively donated more than $2 million, a review of Federal Election Commission filings shows.

Nearly 16 percent of campaign contributions during the 20-month period from the start of the 2011-2012 election cycle until the middle of August came from individuals who did not provide the names of their employers.

The Federal Election Commission requires that information.

By comparison, Democratic opponent Elizabeth Warren’s campaign failed to report employment information for only about 1.6 percent of individual donors during the same period, for a total of just over $255,000.



Read more:

http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x1802914750/Scott-Brown-campaign-missing-financial-information-on-2M-in-donations

6 replies, 1121 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Scott Brown campaign missing financial information on $2M in donations (Original post)
TroyD Sep 2012 OP
longship Sep 2012 #1
flamingdem Sep 2012 #3
longship Sep 2012 #4
magical thyme Sep 2012 #5
longship Sep 2012 #6
gopiscrap Sep 2012 #2

Response to TroyD (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 07:24 AM

1. The FEC doesn't mess around on these things.

If Brown's filings are not in compliance, that's a big deal. As a former county party treasurer I can attest to the complexity of the regulations and the details required to complete the obligatory filings. And, NO, you cannot ask for an extension.

Compliance is a very big deal. Failure is not an option because if you mess up there will be penalties, to say nothing of the bad press.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:10 PM

3. Does that mean he can't spend that money?

Why do you think he lacks that info?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:37 PM

4. No, it may mean his filing is out of compliance

Which means penalties, which would be financial, I suppose.

It's been years since I've been in the trenches and the rules change. But what hasn't changed is that you absolutely don't want to mess up your financial filing.

on edit: he may not have kept track of information, or he may have just omitted it. I don't know what they'd do about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #4)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:40 PM

5. Warren's are out of compliance too. By a much smaller amount

but still out of compliance. Is this normal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to magical thyme (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 02:08 PM

6. I just do not know that.

My experience is two decades ago and Congress has changed much. I haven't even looked at campaign finance requirements since the 90's when I was assisting a friend run a hopeless campaign for Congress.

Sorry, maybe somebody else can fill in some details.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TroyD (Original post)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 10:08 AM

2. I agree...

I ran for US Congress once (from the left) and the FEC and in Washington the PDC didn't mess around with that stuff...my teasurer constantly had to stay on top of that stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread