Former Lamont staffer Tim Tagaris sends this along:
The campaign of Sen. Joe Lieberman, I/D-Conn., agreed to pay a $50,000 civil penalty after the Federal Election Commission concluded that the campaign repeatedly flouted the law in disbursing cash payments to volunteers during Lieberman’s bruising Democratic primary against businessman Ned Lamont in 2006.
The FEC opened an investigation in late 2006 after Lamont’s campaign lodged a complaint alleging that Lieberman was using a "slush fund" to fuel his campaign in the waning days of the primary. Lamont’s campaign cited more than $387,000 in unexplained expenditures listed only as "petty cash."
[]
The FEC recently posted on its Web site a conciliation agreement with the Friends of Joe Lieberman showing that the case had been settled with the campaign’s decision to pay the civil penalty.
According to the conciliation agreement, federal campaign law allows a political committee to maintain petty cash fund for disbursements "not in excess of $100 to any person in connection with a single purchase or transaction." The treasurer, the law says, must keep a record of all petty disbursements, the date, purpose and identity of each recipient.
The agreement says that the Lieberman committee made cash payments to 1,003 canvassers totaling $344,496 for get-out-the vote activity. The agreement says: "In making the payments, the committee withdrew very large amounts of cash from its bank account on 14 separate occasions and gave the money to campaign consultants and volunteers who put cash in envelopes that were disbursed to canvassers, frequently in amounts well in excess of $100."
To answer your question. . . yes, I’ve thought of that.
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Nice to see that little matter cleared up, finally.
They broke the law, as we long suspected.
Thanks for the heads upon this Jane.
What a maroon. Thanks Jane. oh and zed to boot?
So a $50K penalty for Short Ride having possibly used bribery to maintain his seat?
Looks like Short Ride has learned his Senate lessons well on what he can get away with.
too bad it was a civil penalty and not a criminal one. does lieberman also have to reimburse the feds for that false computer hacking criminal investigation?
Maybe a good omen…like being headed in the right direction.
Ahh, the memories come flooding back.
Blech.
I still can’t stand the little bastard.
Criminals in the highest levels of government? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell you!
(No, really – I’m posting this from Guantanamo. *Bzzzzzttt* Ow!)
Seems to me like Lieberman should pay the entire cost of the legally run Lamont campaign…at the very least.
My message back to Tim:
This means for each $100,000 you collect in contributions, you can pay voting bribes of about $88,500, as long as you keep the other $11,500 in the bank to pay fines.
Crime pays.
Shorter Loserman: “A little crime goes a long way!”
Friends of Lieberman? All 3 of them?
RE: “…put cash in envelopes that were disbursed to canvassers, frequently in amounts well in excess of $100…”
“Walking-around money” – Origin of phrase
In American politics, “walking-around money” has a specialized meaning: it is money given by a party or candidate to campaign workers to pay voters to cast their votes for the candidate. (That’s illegal, but has a long history in elections back to the 1800s).
By extension, the term has come to mean any pot of money that can be spent, without much supervision, to buy friends or supporters. For example, each year our state legislature appropriates funds for the “Governor’s walking around money”, which he pays out as incentives to induce companies that agree to move here.
In this broader use, “walking-around money” has a similar meaning to the term “slush fund”.
SOURCE – http://forum.wordreference.com…..p?t=292615
I wonder how many of those little Lieber-GOPer kids who were bused in for cash day pay claimed the income on their taxes?
where’s punaise?
My take too. It was well worth it to Leiberman. $50,000 is a pittance for what he did.
This is horseshit.
several years later, i really should have mellowed out a little bit about lieberman’s dirty tricks, hatred of democracy (and probably everything besides himself and war), etc.
but no.
no mellow to be found.
I swear I saw punaise early in this thread but haven’t a clue where he went off to.
just building up my enduring contempt… it had slipped, but not much.
that’s barely the fine he should have paid for this parking infraction.
thank you.
it’s my solemn duty, ma’am.
If a campaign does something illegal – which this clearly was and they knew it – I believe that candidate should not be able to keep the office if he wins and should be charged. When the rest of us have to answer to our “mistakes” why shouldn’t politicians?
With a few more D senators in 2010 pal Joey could truly be deep-sixed from the caucus. Not that Sheriff Reid would ever consider giving Deputy Dawg his walking papers, mind you. Must think about comity, tut, tut.
No patience for the Senate Dems today after the vote on Durbin’s bill.
i’m out of the loop. what was it?
Bankster protectionist D senators – Baucus, Bennet, Byrd, Carper, Dorgan, Johnson, Landrieu,
Lincoln, Nelson (NE), Pryor, Specter, Tester
Cast a vote against Durbin’s amendment… which was an effort to help out folks in trouble with their mortgage.
Jane covered it in her brilliant spirited way this morning.
doesn’t take compassion for the folks in trouble (although i wish there was more compassion to be found) – it’s the right thing to do to help the economy and therefore all of us.
but the banksters would have to write down the “assets” on their books and maybe even have to provide documentation (documentation that might reveal fraud). oops. can’t have that.
Eli is upstairs.
sickening.
test
And may I just say what a great system we have in the FEC, that over 2 years after he repeatedly violated election law, possibly bribing voters, Lieberman is finally called to account.. by having to pay a small fine in a settlement.
Wow.
We should really just auction off Senate seats already, at least then we might get some transparency.
Lieberman is the essence of the hypocritical pol. He whines and is oozingly sanctimonious but never hesitates to backstab and cheat to gain the slightest advantage.
It’s not Deputy Dawg, it’s DROOPY!
oh, and can we get the Department of Motor Vehicles to fine Joey short-ride for parking in the handicapped spot, too? That’s at least another two-fiddy.
Ah, Droop Soggy Sog…The douche mint and douse mint in one. Looks like the swine flew has come to Connecticut.
;>)
So 45 Senate Democrats vote right, 12 vote wrong, and you have “no patience for the Senate Dems today”?
Jeebus, there arte some lousy Democratic senators. Everybody knows that. But youy’re going to be angry with 45 good guys because 12 people who call themselves Democrats (including Specter) voted wrong?
Beyond that, this wouldn’t have passed if every single Democrat (including Specter) had voted for it. It needed 60 votes, we don’t have Sen. Franken yet, Sen. Kennedy wasn’t there, and not a single Republican voted Aye. We know there are people in the caucus we can never count on–Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Mark Pryor, and Blanche Lincoln. But since everybody knew it was going to fail, should people who are almost always there for us when it counts–people like Sen. Dorgan and Sen. Tester–be thrown to the wolves because they consulted their own interests?