Login Here
PART 102—REGISTRATION, ORGANIZATION, AND RECORDKEEPING BY POLITICAL COMMITTEES (2 U.S.C. 433)
CFR102.11 Petty cash fund (2 U.S.C. 432(h)(2)).
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. (my emphasis)
So where's the journal that accounts for the three-hundred eighty-seven thousand dollars? I think journalists should be demanding to see it, because if Lieberman can't produce one certified by the campaign treasurer it is an admission that he is guilty of egregiously violating federal election law, and that is criminal activity.
Spotlight, anyone?
(thanks to Stephen Parrish, CPA)
Share This 
Spotlight
Ned!
Fitz!
If Joe drinks too much ’slushie’, he will have to use the ‘journal’ in an awful hurry.
;>)
I’ve been asking myself the same question all day - how can this
hugeFRIGGIN’ GIGANTIC half a million dollar expenditure in petty cash NOT be an important campaign issue these last 17 days?Lamont and Schlesinger should pounce on Lieberman on this issue at tomorrow’s debate.
He will try to wave it off as incidental/volunteer/pre-primary expenses.
But Lamont should specifically cite the FEC law and ask “Do you have documentation for each and every transaction of $100 or under w/ name/address/purpose for each transaction and have you submitted that to the FEC? Will you open it for public scrutiny?”
He can finish off Lieberman with this line of query.
Spotlight is doing it to the $387K. Showing up as 7K.
EPU’d
John Casper says:
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:53 pm
Here’s the moneyquote imho, from the AP article (via WaPo) that Matt Stoller linked to:
That’s $210 GRAND in the two weeks before the primary. That
fuckingSCREAMS massive vote buying. If you had 200 grand, just lying around, why wouldn’t you make media purchases?My guess is, all 400 Grand, went for vote buying and they tried to hide the rest somewhere besides petty cash.
My guess is someone on their finance committee yelled bullshit, when Joe wanted to hide these funds somewhere besides petty cash. IMHO, the fact that these funds aren’t better hidden, strongly suggests that someone on the finance committee “pushed back.”
John Casper says:
October 22nd, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Other big
fucking oxymoronquestion that Lieberman4Lieberman has to answer ,where is the other 190 GRAND in petty cash?John Casper says:
October 22nd, 2006 at 8:04 pm
More bullshit
NOBODY gives $210,000 dollars to VOLUNTEERS , especially, over a two-week period.
Lieberman4Lieberman is trying to set up a firewall to insulate campaign staff with these
fallguysvolunteers. Fucking unbelieveable.I can already picture the indignant look on Holy Joe’s face at the thought of his beyond-reproach integrity being challenged by his opponents, or by those shrill people blogging on the internet…
Rules? They’re for the non-elites.
What a appalling sense of entitlement he has.
No wonder Joe has been hammering Ned for his pre-candidate tax returns…he’s trying to cloud the issue. It’s what Joe does best.
Do you think they’ll eject me from the debate if I start yelling “Slush Fund Joe Must GO!” at the top of my lungs? I did promise my wife I wouldn’t get us thrown out…
EPU’d - 100 to 150 a day is a respectable minimum wage. Is this Joe’s new platform?
CT Bob or anyone - Will the dabate be on cspan tomorrow?
oh CT Bob - Saw your response on the last thread, thanks.
darkblack @
2
He must be suffering from a case of brainfreeze to think something like would go unnoticed. This race has to be one of the scrutinized in the whole nation
“NOBODY gives $210,000 dollars to VOLUNTEERS , especially, over a two-week period.”
NOBODY gives $210,000 dollars to VOLUNTEERS, PERIOD, end of
fuckingstory.holy crap! I don’t check in for 24 hours and look what I missed!
Joe? a criminal?!? hmpf!
Mark - Spotlight is interpreting the $ incorrectly. In both posts it has removed the $ and the first two digits.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 9
“Joey, did you bring enough for the whole (working) class?”
Damn, they spent $43,000.00 on gas cards.
Connecticut Bob @
8
Between now and the debate, Bob, I bet you can come up with 387,000 ways to get thrown out. Me, I’d get your wife in a T-shirt that sez PETTY and wear one that sez CASH. I’m sure the ‘pups can come up with some other swell ideas. Have fun!
UptownNYChick @ 16
Uptown, that could be big. It could be more vote buying. It sounds like a lot of the people Joe paid to vote for him in the primary (the one’s who got the $387,000) didn’t own vehicles or at least didn’t want the gas card.
Where’s the Journal, Joe?
That could make for an interesting campaign commercial. Cable news does it all the time, Faux News invented it. Just frame it as a question ; )
Great Idea!
Anyone remember the name of the thread that had all the “I Blame Clinton” comments? I’m working on a blues song with the first verse…
Well Osama ain’t been found
Iraq casualties abound
but I blame Clinton
That ol’ deficits a mess
Coulter wears that same old dress
but I blame Clinton
We got Foley lookin’ pale
Abramoff goin’ to jail
but I blame Clinton
Bad. Bad. Bad.
But nothing yet in the Courant or the Register or anywhere else in CT.
Only in the Globe and the Times.
The media is cowtowing to a 3rd party candidate?
While Tammy Sunster is new since the primary, isn’t [dangerstein] a carryover? And shouldn’t there be lawyers who carryover, anyway? RGJoe can’t get away with saying, “That was the primary, it doesn’t matter anymore.”
TeddySanFran @ 17
Married men are Petty, the ladies are always Cash. *s*
TeddySanFran @ 23
More of a throwback, I’d say. (Snark-free version: yes.)
John Casper @
6
John Casper- I just don’t buy the “vote buying” scenario, and I think it is a disraction from the real and hopefully verifiable illegal activities as to reporting of campaign money.
Lieberman was Desperate for on the ground support in CT prior to the primary- desperate for bodies to show up and make a fuss. He was bussing them in, fer christ (?) sake! He needed people to plant yard signs and hand out literature and be a presence in down-town areas, and he was willing to PAY. He was “desperate, desperate, desperate”. The part about him buying volunteers a good talking point, and NOT really hard to understand. And, it’s been buzzing around for a good long while. Talking about him buying votes is not a good way to go… at least not at the level of the “petty cash”. It just won’t wash.
John Casper:
14 days x $100 x 150 “volunteers”: $210,000.
Seems pretty easy to me.
TeddySanFran @ 17
And on the backs it can say SLUSH and FUND.
And then the TV cameras will get a chance to film my wife strangling me for even SUGGESTING something that silly. Fun.
TeddySanFran @ 17
Get your hands on $387,000 in small-denomination play money and take it to a Lieberman event. Throw it at him. Repeat.
Jane -
Valley Girl ought to get credit for finding the Code of Federal Regulations reference that you attributed to me, since she saw it before I did and asked me about it in a comment in what is presently the penultimate thread. What I subsequently found and mentioned in that thread, thanks to assistance from others, is referenced in another part of CFR 102.11: 2 USC 432’s subsections (c), (d), and possibly subsection (h).
TeddySanFran @ 23
Did I read Lieberman staff members were booted rather unceremoniously… perhaps some disgruntled former employees know a bit more than we outsiders…
anyone know any of the former staff???
First Two Days Back
I went back to the subway yesterday and was able to play for about 90 minutes with relative ease. However when I returned this afternoon, it took only took about five songs before blisters started forming at the tips of my fingers. I ended up lasting only about an hour. The blisters will be with me for another 2 days of work as my fingers get back to normal strength.
My voice was another matter entirely. While I was in the hospital they had a tube down my throat for a long time and I’ve found that my pipes are still raw from it, and all of the muscles involved in the process of singing hadn’t been flexed in close to 2 months. It was a dose of reality for sure.
From the looks of things now I should be back to my normal 2 1/2 hours in about 10 days. This will allow me the time necessary to produce my Holiday Extravaganza.
It felt really good to take my guitar out for a test drive and perform in front of people again.
John Casper @ 18
When I drove voters in 2004, ACT gave us $20 gas cards.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @ 30
Nah, kind of you, but no thanks! But you are a sweetie. I think it’s MUCH better that the link is to Stephen Parrish CPA!!! And I didn’t find the whole thing anyway- not chapter and verse!!! xxxoooo
UptownNYChick @ 33
Did they hand out 2,150 of them? Jeebus, are all of Holy Joe’s people driving Hummers?
Valley Girl @ 26
I agree. Also, Ned needn’t bring this up in the last debate. Schlessinger will take care of that. Lamont needs to pound home a positive, PROGRESSIVE message about what he’s going to do.
$387,000 could have bought Joe a decent webmaster and lots of bandwidth dontcha think?
chris @ 37
Or he could have gotten a personality.
Did anybody catch the 60 Minutes interview with Nancy Pelosi? I walked into the room and caught only the last few seconds. Just in time to hear her say “… just making George Bush a lame duck should be enough.” God is she already cowering from the oncoming wave of shrillness? I know we are sort of stuck with the current Dem leadership, but this makes you want to bang your head on something until all consious thought flees.
Seriously if Joe paid 100 to 150 per day and didn’t hire voting aged “volunteers” who would be less likely to trash flyers etc. he is an idiot.
If he had to bus kids in from afar then gasoline costs (including higher prices than 2004) would be significant.
Anne @ 27
Easy, and illegal. In many way.
FEC Reporting Rules
Employer Reporting - 1099
Employee Reporting - income
Employer Due Diligence - Felon/Illegal
I don’t think Joe’s people went up to strangers and offered to pay them to vote for Joe in the primary.
I do think Joe’s people went up to strangers, asked if they could vote in the Democratic primary, and offered to pay them to “work” for Joe. Then they gave them some Joe campaign literature to pass out. Then oh by the way, they told them that they had to vote for Joe, and that Joe has their name. Joe’s campaign will check with the precinct to make sure they voted and they probably included some inuendo that they could track how they voted. I agree with you, Joe wanted these people to “work” for him. Joe wanted a visible Lieberman presence, that he had to pay for. I’m not disagreeing with you about that. It also might have included logging onto internet polls such as Zogby to show support for Joe (not sure if that’s possible).
I just think it was very well understood that the “work” also included the vote in the primary.
Subway Serenade @ 32
You’re awesome. Great that you’re well and back to work.
I have to play trombone in six concerts starting this Friday, because a trombonist in an ensemble I play in has gotten ill. I’ve been playing tuba exclusively since February (and bugle, when called). Been getting the chops back up since Friday and even broke the t’bone down and gave it a bath and a lot of polishing today.
Scary
Cozumel >”Where`s the Journal, Joe?…”
First it was a kiss, then a missing petty cash journal, what`s next Joe ?
“Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact….Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.” - newshog@gmail.com
Violating FEC reporting, accounting, and cash handling regulations really puts the lie to RGJoe’s eighteen years’ experience advantage, doesn’t it, Nutmeggers?
TeddySanFran @ 46
Nobody ever said it was good experience.
Stephen Parrish, CPA @
30
I’ll give VG credit too.
Patrick Kennedy @ 44
707!
It’s safe to say he didn’t spend it on blow…mentum…
Valley Girl @
34
Okay, well, we’ll just applaud Valley Girl in the comments.
*Big hand for Valley Girl*
I just have to ask at this point: does anybody see any possible form of Joecounting for this that won’t come up illegal in some way?
what’s the freak, wincy Joeneth?
John Casper, with all due respect, I think you are really reaching on the vote-buying thing. Joe’s run a terrible campaign, he’s got some real jerks working for him, but checking with the precinct to see how someone voted? You can’t even be serious that a campaign would actually leave a trail of breadcrumbs right up to the voting booth - and please, tell me how someone from the campaign would be able to access a person’s vote, and do it in a way that the precinct judges and elections supervisors wouldn’t know it was being done.
And you can’t tell me that not even one person who was given cash and told he or she had to vote for Joe would not have blabbed to the media about it by now - or even on primary day.
Sorry, just not buying it, at least not the way you’ve laid it out.
Helpless Dancer @ 39
She’s the new Hammer, wow. That was a great piece
Read the whole thing….
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories.....1089.shtml
Hi Senator Lieberman! It’s October!
SURPRISE!
John Casper @ 42
John Casper- sorry, I still don’t buy it. People had to actually be registered as Dems to vote in the primary, and had to do this well before the primary- can’t remember the date, but I think it was before the onslaught of the Liebertroops. I don’t remember either the %, but a plurality if not a majority of CT voters are “Independent”. Many did switch to Dem affiliation so that they could vote in the primary, but even with that, CT had a large percentage of Inds. at the time of the primary. I still don’t buy your scenario, and still think it’s a distraction from verifiable illegalities. I was in CT prior to the primary- and all I can add it my gut feeling that “vote buying” was not happening. And, Zogby poll voting was not going on. People in CT were astounded and somewhat aghast to suddenly be the subject of national attention. It really is not Daley’s Chicago. (edited p.s.- CT is a closed primary)
Given the sources for much of Joe’s finances, here’s a question to spread around:
Joe would be nowhere without support from Bush’s big money friends from Texas. Do you think they’ll allow Joe to forget that if he wins in November?
This puts the onus on the bad guys from big money/Repubs/Texans and not on “innocent” Joe. Might help with those who admire Joe for his integrity.
Jane Hamsher @ 51
Okay.
Anne @ 54
Anne - at least in the late 80s, vote buying was considered pretty common in some CT cities … drive around, offer a gang of guys some easy money … take them to a friendly precinct and have them vote, them drive them back to their hangout … it was done then, not saying it’s what Joe did but he was around then and it was a dem machine tactic (at the time, the dem machines ran the cities).
And while you cannot track the actual vote cast, you can (or could) get printouts during the day on election day to see who had voted and who hadn’t.
So can you guarantee your “employees” voted right - maybe not, but you can make sure they at least hit the polls.
just info from my past life … note that we never had the desire or the slush funds to do this
Whatever Joe was doing with the cash, the lack of reporting itself is illegal … no journal, no excuse
Cozumel @ 55
Helpless, I think if you saw the whole piece you’d change your mind. I don’t think Pelosi is a very good orater, she seems like she’s winging it sometimes, but tonight she came across as strong and confident. Keep that attitude Nancy!
“slush slush slush” is the sound of Joe slogging through the fever swamp of the lefty blogosphere.
Suin- okay, maybe that would work for a general election, but I just don’t see it happening in a closed primary. At least not with enough “bang for the bucks” to make it worthwhile.
I’ve got a post about Ken Blackwell at Buckeye State Blog. Mostly, I did it for the Photoshop therapy. ;)
Anne, it’s my understanding that whether someone voted in an election is public record. If that does not apply in CT primaries, please by all means let me know. I will be happy to stand corrected.
If you’ll reread my comment, please notice that I used the word “inuendo.” How someone votes, is not a matter of public record. Knowing human nature as I do, I don’t think Joe’s people were anxious to communicate that to the volunteers they were paying. In fact, I suspect they would have done just the opposite, left the impression, that they could retrieve how that person voted.
Anne, Lieberman4Lieberman has admitted paying $210,000 to volunteers out of petty cash. For the last two threads there have been links to laws that make that illegal. A campaign can’t pay a contractor out of their petty cash.
I have zero direct evidence that Joe bought votes.
But, why was Joe so anxious to hide the identity of these “workers,” that he broke the law by paying them out of petty cash? It only makes sense if he was buying their votes and he was certain we would figure that out, if he left a paper trail by paying legally. If you know of some other reason Joe would break the law (to the tune of $387,000) to pay “workers,” from whom he was not buying votes, I am very anxious to hear it.
punaise @ 62
And “tinkle tinkle tinkle” is the sound of Joe messing his pants in fear that this one can’t be cleaned up.
Sorry Joe, no more mulligans for you!
I can’t imagine why we should consider it impossible, or out of bounds, or unfair, to contemplate that votes were bought. If Joe has the journals and a good explanation, he’ll have a solid, convincing response to the question, “Were you buying votes?” And he’ll have a chance to respond directly. Entirely fair.
And if he doesn’t, well, that is precisely why the law is there in the first place–to make a vote-buying operation harder to hide. You can’t just let someone off from that with a discussion about “technicalities” and “unlikelihood” and a call for the high road.
As Glenn Greenwald keeps saying about wiretapping: if it’s really about known terrorists, why keep it out of the FISA court? Here–if it’s really for gas cards, why keep it off the books?
Suppose all the allegations here are true, including the vote-buying. How significant is it in terms of the election?
What is the worst penalty Lieberman could suffer?
John- I still stand with the interpretation that Joe was desperate, desperate, desperate for the appearance of lots of support on the ground prior to the primary and that he paid for that. And, the way it was done- catch as catch can, did not *lend* itself to being thoughtful about buying that presence. And that’s where I think he’s up shit creek.
Professor Foland @ 67
I haven’t seen anybody doing that…they are only stating what they believe to be reasons that it is improbable.
marky @ 68
That is exactly the bottom-line question, Marky.
EvilDrPuma @ 70
I’m afraid I wasn’t clear. I’m simply saying that I see no reason to care whether it’s improbable.
Valley, you raise a valid point about registered Democrats. If you’ll note, I raised that in the comment you quoted. Joe would have had to target registered Dems.
I’m clearly missing something here; I’m not clear how raising the issue of vote buying is a “distraction” from verifiable illegalities? We can’t verify the illegalities, because Joe wanted to wipe away any connection between him and “volunteers” he paid $210,000 to in the two weeks before the election.
The last thing I want to do is distract from Joe’s verifiable illegalities.
Professor Foland @ 72
Well, because it’s not going to help our case against Joe if there are “improbables” muddying the water, when there are “probable” violations that don’t have anything to do with vote buying.
Looking at the math, it’s interesting.
$75,000 equals 750 person days at $100/day.
$135,000 equals 1350 person days at $100/day
$387,000 equals 3870 person days at $100/day.
So, if you have 387 people on the staff spending $100/day, you could have them for 100 days? (And that’s at the MAXIMUM of $100/day. At say, $50/day, we’re talking 1500, 2700 and 7740 person days…)
I don’t know what the logistics are, but that seems pretty wild to me.
Anyone have a better feel for how many people for how long?
-Greg
“This is just another reckless charge from a desperate campaign that is obsessed with reliving the primary,” said Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun. “The fact is, our attorney has assured us that the petty cash expenditures and the rest of our FEC report is in full compliance with the law’s disclosure requirements just as every campaign Joe Lieberman has run for the last 18 years has been.”
John- I feel that it is a distraction, because there is reason enough to suspect illegalities just on the basis of non-documented payments to “volunteers”- a hard case could be made for this. Whatever you or others might suspect about vote-buying, it is a much iffier case to prove, and, at this point in the election cycle, not imo worth going after in a serious way. Speculation, sure. But I want to stick with stuff that has a greater likelihood of nailing Joe.
Late Nite is up, everybody.
If you pay one person $100 a day for 14 days, that’s $1,400.
If you spent $367,000 that way, you have to have 276 people receiving $1,400. I don’t know if this is an outlandish number of workers to have on a campaign or not. But any journal that recorded their cash disbursements for workers has to account for 276 people.
rat bastahd @ 61
I did catch only the last few seconds, so maybe I did jump to an unjustified conclusion. But for me it wasn’t a very big jump due to the leadership’s record of rolling over. On the other hand, maybe things will change when fighting the good fight isn’t equivelent to beating your head on a brick wall.
How about comparing this campaign’s petty cash figrues with past Lieberman campaigns?
Helpless Dancer @ 80
Pelosi has the Dem House in lock-step like DeLay did for the Repugs. Nice ; )
Urban Pirate @ 41
It may be even worse than that. If these “volunteers” were actually employees, due to the level of control over their activities by the Lieberman campaign, then it would NOT be 1099 reporting. It would be FICA taxes, quarterly reporting and year-end W-2 forms. Not to mention any state payroll taxes and workman’s comp requirements. I’m not a CPA, but I am an Enrolled Agent.
Balrog @
5
I have this fixed by the morning. (Sorry, I haven’t been as responsive as I’ve been in the past. I’m in the middle of moving…)
CAGary @ 83
Toss this into the mix - less than $600/year, and you are understood to be an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee - and then the taxes, workers comp, etc. become the contractor’s obligation and not the business owner.
John Casper @
6
All I can say is that if Joementum spent $387K buying votes in the primary, that did him about as much good as his stance on the war–he still lost.
But, the really nice thing is that if someone catches him at it now, he’ll be much less able to get away with the same in the general election. :)
“What is the worst penalty Lieberman could suffer?”
Could be that in a court of law, not much. However, in the court of public opinion, he could pay a heavy price.
Well, Susan,
I’m not sure if Lieberman will suffer much.
How will people be able to see that this offense is particularly bad?
If it can’t be shown that Lieberman was buying votes, then this just looks like a technical infraction.
And you can’t tell me that not even one person who was given cash and told he or she had to vote for Joe would not have blabbed to the media about it by now - or even on primary day.
First, why would anyone blab? They want another payday from Joe for the General election, plus who wants to piss off a U.S. Senator and the party machine Joe will control if he wins?
Second, that’s why Joe paid them cash from his petty cash fund. According to Joe’s filing, there is no record. My guess is somewhere, someone has some record of something.
With all due respect back to you, I don’t think I’m overreaching. Whether Joe bought votes or not is secondary. Joe engaged in accounting fraud which is wholly consistent with vote buying. “Volunteers” are volunteers. Paid campaign staff are paid campaign staff. If Joe was just embarrassed, because he had too few “volunteers,” and he wanted to drop $387,000 to artificially inflate their number, fine, that’s certainly less serious than buying votes. I’d like Joe to come out and state that, for the record.
Down 7.5 in the polls, I think Ned would be making a mistake not to bring up vote buying. If he doesn’t, it will be easier for TEFLON Joe to convince a few flunkies to take the FULL blame for a few “accounting irregularities.”
Joe could well control who controls the U.S. Senate, based on who he decides to caucus with. You can bet that Joe has the full support of the GOP and Rove helping him try to cover this up.
“I think Ned would be making a mistake not to bring up vote buying.”
I agree. Voters have had it with political corruption. If it can be proven that Lieberman engaged in accounting fraud and vote buying, Lamont should make certain that everyone in CT knows that “Holy” Joe is a sleazy pol.
LOL, Next thing you know he’s going to say that the account expenses are “Classified.” Nice way to cover up his bullshit
Hell, at the very least Joementum’s campaign has been irresponsible with and unable to account for huge sums of money… that in and of itself should disqualify him from being a member of congress… oh, wait…
And yet there’s never been an full accounting of FDL donations…
Firedog Lake: Where irony is never in short supply.
Balrog @
5
All fixed. Sorry for the problems.
Where did the $15 million raised come from Joe? Exactly WHO are these unidentified contributors?
EPU’d, but could someone wear a Johnny Cash t-shirt to the debate with ‘JOHNNY’ pasted over with ‘PETTY’?
troll@93: remind me never to eat your apple pie, because it’s bound to be stuffed full of oranges.
When we worked for Ned we were given $5. on election day for lunch. We had to sign for it.
“egregiously violating federal law…”
Oooh!
And good morning.
Greg @
75
OR, Could it be 3870 “voulnteers” who happened to vote for Joe?<