Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lamont has filed the FEC complaint against Lieberman.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:26 AM
Original message
Lamont has filed the FEC complaint against Lieberman.
A snip from the official complaint:

The Friends of Joe Lieberman committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman, individually have violated the clear and unambiguous terms of 11 C.F.R. 102.11 in at least the following three ways.

First, according to the FEC October Quarterly report filed on October 13, 2006, the Lieberman campaign has petty cash disbursements amounting to $387,561.00, which is roughly 8 percent of its total disbursements, or one out of every twelve dollars spent. On several occasions, petty cash disbursements greater than $100 were reported, as supposed payment for volunteers. A summary of these disbursements from the Friends of Joe Lieberman report is attached hereto. These disbursements reflect patent violations of 11 C.F.R. 102.11.

Second, the report does not include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. Again, Friends of Joe Lieberman stands in clear violation of 11 C.F.R. 102.11.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, the Associated Press reported earlier today that Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun claims the cash was supposedly used pay to field coordinators who then distributed money to workers who were canvassing (Andrew Miga, Lamont Questions Lieberman's Spending, October 23, 2006). There is no evidence that the Lieberman committee kept and maintained a written journal of any kind regarding these disbursements as required by 11 C.F.R. 102.11. As I am sure you are aware, the rationale for this regulation is to, among other things, prevent the creation and utilization of slush funds for illicit purposes. The $387,561.00 involved here is a sum of supposed petty cash expenditures unprecedented in any race in our states history. The Lieberman campaigns patent disregard for this regulation calls for the immediate investigation of this matter by your office to ensure that the voters of Connecticut can be fairly informed about the conduct of their elected officials.

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/s/fecletter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
1. One thing to bear in mind:
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 11:33 AM by femmedem
Anticipating his primary loss, Lieberman's campaign was furiously gathering signatures at the time this fund was being spent. First, were the signature gatherers, who should have been listed in a campaign expense journal, CT residents? Second, were they buying, not votes, but signatures? (Pure speculation on my part.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
2. Seriously, WTF Did Lieberman Really Do W/ This Money???
Any theories? Obviously, it wasn't used for what he said it was. I mean, why pay those people's salaries in this manner, out of petty cash? There should already be expenses allotted for in the campaign for these people's salaries, why would they pay them out of petty cash? What was the money really used for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REACTIVATED IN CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. That was the question I asked in my LTTE's to a couple of CT
newspapers.

Femmedem's theory about paying people to collect signatures makes sense since the travel, food and lodging for his volunteers that he bused in from NY and DC was accounted for in his report.

Why is he hiding what all that money went for ???

I hope it is brought up in tonight's debate. The CT people who think he is wonderfula and who are planning to vote for him need to see what a desperate slimeball he really is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
22. I think he's hiding it because...
IIRC Conn law says paid signature gatherers must be Conn citizens, and a lot of money might have gone for busses, which means out of state professional signature -for $ bounty hunters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REACTIVATED IN CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. k & r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. $387,561 is petty, isn't it?
Pocket change! :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
6. Confirmed: Signature collectors must be registered to vote in CT.
If the signature collectors were from out of state, that would explain why they aren't accounted for as neatly as all the other minutae in Lieberman's expenses.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REACTIVATED IN CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Can you give a cite for this ?
Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Saw it on Lamont's blog. But I'm going to call and find out.
On closer reading, it was in the comments section. I'm going to call the elections commission now and hear for myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REACTIVATED IN CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. From the Secy of State's website
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 11:49 AM by REACTIVATED IN CT
Sec. 9-453e. Circulator. Each circulator of a nominating petition page shall be a United States citizen, at least eighteen years of age and a resident of a town in this state and shall not be on parole for conviction of a felony. Any individual proposed as a candidate in any nominating petition may serve as circulator of the pages of such nominating petition.



(1971, P.A. 806, S. 6; P.A. 03-241, S. 54; P.A. 04-58, S. 7.)



History: P.A. 03-241 substituted "shall be a United States citizen, at least eighteen years of age, a resident of a town in this state and shall not be on parole for conviction of a felony" for "shall be an elector of a town in this state and eligible to vote for all candidates listed on such petition", effective July 9, 2003, and applicable to petitions circulated on or after that date; P.A. 04-58 made a technical change.



http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap153.htm#Sec9-453.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Thanks. Confirmed by phone now too.
Waiting for a callback from the Elections lawyer, Ted Bromley to see what happens if it turns out the signature gatherers were from out of state.

I have to get offline now. I'm delivering some shoes for the Code Pink demonstration outside the debate. I'm going to watch the debate live and be part of the pre-debate rally. I'm so excited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. I live in New London, where tonight's debate is being held.
Off thread topic, but it's so exciting to see the big Code Pink banners going up now and all the shoes for the Walk In My Shoes display tagged and waiting to be brought downtown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #20
34. wish I were there but I'm farther north and west
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #34
47. The debate was fantastic! The Lamont support was huge.
The Kiss float was there, updated with Petty Cash


And here's a video of the huge crowd marching to the Garde (with bagpipers!) before the debate. I'm in here somewhere. :) No direct link yet, scroll down the Lamont page.
http://www.nedlamont.com/blog
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
27. If lieberman is found to have violated the rules regarding signatures...
...will he be disallowed from the race?

It'd serve the fucking asshole right!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fuzzyball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. Don't hold your breath....Lieberman is well connected inside the
poltical powers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Well, it's not like we'll forget if he broke the law.
And even if he didn't, and he somehow wins, anyone thinking we'll stop trying to end his career is not paying attention!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beetwasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Ok, That Would Make Sense As To Why He Would Hide This
He probably hired illegal canvassers. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Oh Please Let This Be Substantiated!! I Can't Bear The Thought
of having to even LOOK at Mr. Lie's "prune" face for another SIX years!! And I don't even live in CT!

What is WRONG up there??? Don't get me wrong, I see many here who are completely outargued about what he did by running as an "Independent" Democrat, and for the most part is being called an Independent rather than a Democrat. But what bothers me even more is the fact that if he wins he will maintain all his positions on committees that he is now a part of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
32. How about signatories, since this is the FEDERAL Elections Commission?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REACTIVATED IN CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
10. One more nomination needed to get this where it belongs
On the Greatest Page.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellerpup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:58 AM
Response to Original message
12. Kick & nominated
:kick: :kick: :kick: Let the news be heard!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
14. What's the worst that's going to happen to Lieberman because of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REACTIVATED IN CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I would think the petition to put him on the ballot would be invalid
Keep in mind, this is just a theory that femmedem put out there. How can it be proven ? It does make sense, though. I remember reading that when circulators were questioned by non-LIEberman pople back in late July/early August, they were not upfront about what they were doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stand and Fight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
15. So, the potentially outright outrageous thing is that...
He hired illegal canvassers because they were from out-of-state. Lieberman has absolutely no scruples. What a rotten bastard. I hope something comes of this. Kicked AND recommended ardently!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
28. Remember the "DOS attack" lieberman "suffered" on primary day?
The one that was traced back to someone at his own campaign?

He's not above this kind of scumfuckery. THIS MUST BE PURSUED, just as urgently as going after any other crooked, lying conservative asshole.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #28
53. Classic machine politics
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 08:05 AM by formercia
from back when the Dems had a deservedly bad rep.

Remember, Fearless Leader's grand pappy was a dem. They go with whoever gives them the most power. It's not about Democrats or Republican values, it's about gangsterism.

I used to laugh when the soviets called us gangsters but they were actually pretty close to the mark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
18. Bad Joe. Just like a Republican
He's quacking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
19. Just got an e-mail from a local reporter.
He says the petition circulators' names are on the petitions, and have been verified by the Sec. of State. If there were other people circulating petitions whose names weren't on them, that would be hard to prove.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
windbreeze Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. yeah, and how hard
would that have been to do...he could have had one or ten people sign a bunch of empty petition papers, then gathered signatures...or gathered signatures first, then had them signed...and no one would have been the wiser....I have signed petitions at grocery stores, etc., and I don't ever recall paying attention to whether the paper itself had a signature....so where did the rumors that he had people from other places...(NY and DC) helping out come from....some more digging is required maybe....I truly believe he/the rep's would have done this...because they would do, what they knew would be hard to prove, if anyone questioned it, down the road...like they are now..
wb
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. can't be in two places at the same time
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 02:34 PM by formercia
check the names on the petitions and compare the dates to see if it showed them in two places at the same time, like more than one person was using the same signatures but were in different towns on the same day.

Even better, get the signers to swear under penalty of perjury that they personally collected the signatures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. That is an excellent idea.
I'll post it at Lamont's site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Good thinking!
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
44. in a CT paper there was an ad for signature collectors during primary season
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 08:38 PM by wordpix2
The ad stated that, I think, collectors would earn $1.00 per signature.

I was wondering back then if that was Lieberbush's campaign seeking signatories and collectors for money, which sounds pretty desparate for signatures but I didn't look into it at the time. I didn't think Lieberman would do anything so Rovian as to pay out $387,500 in slush funds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Wow. Interesting.
I just got back from the debate and ensuing party--Alan Schlesinger showed up at Lamont's party!Kind of sad he didn't have a party of his own, just out wandering around--and I'm sleepy. But when I can, I'm going to see if I can find that. Do you remember what paper it was in?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. now thinking it wasn't a paper, it was online. Try the archives here:
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 10:14 PM by wordpix2
http://hartford.craigslist.org /

This seems to be the best bet, looking at my job search records.
I think it was in July/early Aug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:16 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. time frame is right. Thanks.
I'll spend some time there tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
femmedem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 03:59 PM
Response to Original message
25. Here is an interesting post from one of the best CT blogs
Law enforcement officials and reporters trying to get to the bottom of Joe Lieberman's illegal campaign slush fund may want to talk to Tom Lindenfeld of LSG Strategies.
Unconfirmed reports coming from people very well connected to Lieberman's primary campaign are saying that every day a courier would arrive at Lieberman campaign headquarters with anywhere from $20,000 to $50,000 in cold hard cash for Mr. Lindenfeld to... well, what exactly he did with it is not known.

However, many of the expenditures that Mr. Lindenfeld's "dynamic constituent and voter contact organization" would be responsible for seem to be already covered in the itemized lists from the campaign. So what's with the extra 387 Gs?

Mr. Lindenfeld may be the best source for answering the 387 thousand dollar question.
http://www.myleftnutmeg.com/frontPage.do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
26. GOOD. lieberman must be politically destroyed at this point.
He's taking money from scumbags like the Scooter Libby defender in my sigline, siding with b*s* on John "Captain Danger and His Traveling Mustache" BOLTON, etc.

This is big, and if the allegations are true, lieberman must be thrown from office right along with the fascists he coddles up with!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
29. UPDATE: lieberman spokesperson intends to DEFY ELECTION LAW.
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 04:52 PM by Zhade
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/23/above-the-law /

Even though Lieberman mouthpiece Tammy Sun claimed that today the campaign would produce the ledger it is required by federal election law to keep detailing petty cash expenditures that would account for the questionable $387,000, she just announced that they wouldn't be doing so so one can presume that either a) they couldn't find it, b) it doesn't exist or c) it contains information that could prove damaging to Joe.


And from the second link in that piece:

The Lieberman campaign said it was in full compliance with the law and said, bluntly, it would release the journal when Mr. Lamont releases the joint tax returns he filed with his wife. (And each campaign has an online petition calling for the other side to do as requested.)


1) He's not in compliance with the law; the ledger MUST be released, BY LAW.

2) The matter of this money and Lamont's tax returns are legally unconnected - lieberman is required to release the ledger's contents independent of whether or not Lamont releases the tax return information.

Man, I hope this destroys that sanctimonious fucker lieberman. When's the debate again?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. thanks for that info. This is getting to be aquite the fight here in CT and
I totally agree with you. By law, Lieberbush must release the ledger but I believe there is no legal need for Ned to release his income tax info.

This is getting nasty. :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Well, lieberman must be held accountable if he broke the law.
Allowing him to slide would make us hypocrites (even if he's really NOT one of our own).

I sincerely hope this is being followed up on - it must not stand if he used illegal tactics.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. co-sign the letter to the FEDERAL not BUSHCO Elections Commission
http://www.nedlamont.com/page/s/fecletter

HOME BLOG ABOUT NED MEDIA NEWS ISSUES EVENTS GET INVOLVED CONTRIBUTE CONTACT
Co-sign the FEC Letter
Demand that Joe Lieberman Divulge How He Spent $387,000 in "Petty Cash"

Joe Liebermans FEC filings list over $387,000 in unexplained expenditures listed only as "petty cash" during just 12 days near the August 8th primary. These suspect, and unaccounted for payments, represent one out of every twelve dollars spent during the entire reporting period.

The Lamont campaign is filing the following FEC complaint against Friends of Joe Lieberman, charging violations of campaign finance laws due to the creation of a nearly $400,000 slush fund.

Read and then co-sign the letter below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


October 23, 2006


Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street NW
Washington, DC 20463

RE: Formal Complaint Regarding Friends of Joe Lieberman
(Committee ID: C00235515)

Dear General Counsel:

Please accept this letter as a formal complaint regarding the apparent violation of Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 102.11, by the Friends of Joe Lieberman committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman, individually. As set forth more fully below, the Lieberman committee has failed to account for more than $387,000.00 in supposed petty cash expenditures in violation of 11 C.F.R. 102.11. On behalf of the citizens of Connecticut and all federal taxpayers, it is hereby alleged:


Title 11 C.F.R. 102.11 (2 U.S.C. 432(h)(2)) (Petty Cash Fund) provides:

A political committee may maintain a petty cash fund out of which it may make expenditures not in excess of $100 to any person per purchase or transaction. If a petty cash fund is maintained, it shall be the duty of the treasurer of the political committee to keep and maintain a written journal of all disbursements. This written journal shall include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. In addition, if any disbursement is made for a candidate, the journal shall include the name of that candidate and the office (including State and Congressional district) sought by such candidate.


The Friends of Joe Lieberman committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman, individually have violated the clear and unambiguous terms of 11 C.F.R. 102.11 in at least the following three ways.

First, according to the FEC October Quarterly report filed on October 13, 2006, the Lieberman campaign has petty cash disbursements amounting to $387,561.00, which is roughly 8 percent of its total disbursements, or one out of every twelve dollars spent. On several occasions, petty cash disbursements greater than $100 were reported, as supposed payment for volunteers. A summary of these disbursements from the Friends of Joe Lieberman report is attached hereto. These disbursements reflect patent violations of 11 C.F.R. 102.11.

Second, the report does not include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. Again, Friends of Joe Lieberman stands in clear violation of 11 C.F.R. 102.11.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, the Associated Press reported earlier today that Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun claims the cash was supposedly used pay to field coordinators who then distributed money to workers who were canvassing (Andrew Miga, Lamont Questions Lieberman's Spending, October 23, 2006). There is no evidence that the Lieberman committee kept and maintained a written journal of any kind regarding these disbursements as required by 11 C.F.R. 102.11. As I am sure you are aware, the rationale for this regulation is to, among other things, prevent the creation and utilization of slush funds for illicit purposes. The $387,561.00 involved here is a sum of supposed petty cash expenditures unprecedented in any race in our states history. The Lieberman campaigns patent disregard for this regulation calls for the immediate investigation of this matter by your office to ensure that the voters of Connecticut can be fairly informed about the conduct of their elected officials.

I would appreciate you contacting me to confirm receipt of this complaint.

I thank you in advance for your attention to this pressing matter.

Sincerely Yours,

Thomas Swan
300 Research Parkway, Suite 102
Meriden, CT 06450

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. Sounds like Rove in play here...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #41
43. hmmm, this does sound quite Rovian, doesn't it? Methinks an investigation is in order
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REACTIVATED IN CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #29
54. Where exactly does it say he has to release it ?
I looked at the code cited (Title 11 C.F.R. 102.11 (2 U.S.C. 432(h)(2))
and it only seems to say what has been quoted here and elsewhere - that the treasurer has to KEEP a journal. Can anyone find where the law says the contents of the journal has to be reported ???? Seems logical that such a journal would have to be produced, but who knows ? Rove may have shown LIEberman a loophole in the election laws.

(I'm on deadline at work today and don't have time to research this. Are there any legal researchers out there who can look into this?)


http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tp...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REACTIVATED IN CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. OK, I found the answer
LIEberman found a loophole in the campaign finance laws

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 05:06 PM
Response to Original message
30. Keep this kicked, people - this can't be allowed to fade away!
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
38. Another update, from (meh) Kos...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/21/16929/570

Includes scans of lieberman's disbursements and other info.

CT Dems, DO NOT LET THIS DIE! If this asshole is breaking the law, make him pay for it, just as we would any other conservative liar!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:13 PM
Response to Original message
39. The Center for Public Integrity has been notified.
(No, I'm not letting that scumbag lieberman get away with this if I can help it!)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. too bad THIS didn't come up in the debate but if Joe comes to my 'hood,
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 08:29 PM by wordpix2
I will definitely ask him what the hell is up with this "petty cash" slush fund.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
49. Um, noooooooooo, this is NOT falling into the memory hole.
Sorry, lieberman-lovers out there (fuck you, by the way), this is going back to the top!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Joe is not even willing to play by the rules but expects everybody else to?
It's no wonder he and bush kiss each other, they must both think they are looking in a mirror :spray:


Joe you get an "F" in the "Plays well with others" section x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. Yep. He needs to go down, hard.
NT!



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 04:43 AM
Response to Original message
52. Kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wiley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
56. Maybe Joe picked up some boys for his Republican friends?
Of course, his campaign would see nothing wrong with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 22nd 2014, 11:15 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC