Your cash ain't nothin' but trash

   The Federal Election Commission says Sen. Claire McCaskill’s campaign may have accepted “excessive and/or prohibited” donations from 19 people in the final weeks of the 2006 election.

     The commission sent a letter to McCaskill for Missouri this week, asking for further information about the donations, which were made between Oct. 19 and Nov. 27, then disclosed Dec. 7 of last year.

     Federal law, the letter says, limits individual donations to $2,100 per election.  The 19 donors appear to have given, together, almost $28,000 in excess donations, out of more than $10.5 million raised for the campaign.

     The campaign can clarify the donations, if they’re the result of clerical errors, or they can be refunded; the commission can also sanction the campaign committee.

  “The acceptance of excessive donations is a serious problem,” the letter says.  “…Prompt action by you to refund, redesignate, and/or reattribute of the excessive amount will be taken into consideration."

Posted by Dave Helling

Comments

10,500,000/28,000=.2426, or .02%

[qotsa]

More conservative games to try and slander another liberal leader.

[craig]

Since when was the Federal Election Commission a conservative orginisation?

[Engawyer]

28k out of 10.5 million. That's like giving a pneumonia victim a band-aid for his paper cut. The system has muck more serious problems, I'm trying to say.

[craig]

Valid point Eng. But she harped pretty loud about all the corruption in Washington.

[Stryker]

Oh, so she's above the law?

[Political Moderate]

Whoa...
May I remind everyone the campaign has the obligation and the right to clarify the donations. There is some assumption of innocence until proven guilty available to even politicians.
If this is a simple clerical error, won't we feel bad for having jumped to a conclusion before the facts are even presented?

[craig]

PM,
With all due respect, the Dems were getting a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions prior to the elections.

[craig]

And no I won't feel bad. I know Claire is dirty, she is just smart enough to not get caught.

[nosheepleallowed]

Innocent until proven guilty? If you believe that, then you have never had to deal with the system.
I am no McCaskill fan but who cares, she is not the first or the last to take bribe and special interest money.
Everyone in Deferal, State and local government are self serving crooks, especially the ones that are lawyers.

[Political Moderate]

Craig---I don't disagree that the Dems used misinformations. I also contend so have the Republicans. Both are guilty...
My point is if we don't like that type of political behavior, we have to object to it.
As you know, I remain unhappy at the attack ads used by Sam Graves against Sara Jo Shettles when that election was clearly in the bag.
It was mean. It was wrong.
There are lots of examples from both parties across the state and country of that type behavior. It is mean. It is wrong.
In this situation, let's find out the facts before piling on this (or any) politician.
If Claire or her operatives broke the law...have at her!
But, that hasn't been established.
A bit of patience, please.
A bit of civility, please.
There will be plenty of opportunity to eviscerate her if the facts show her in the wrong.
Craig, I'm going to step out of the pulpit now.
How's Sam?

[Dee]

Shocker!!!!

[harpo]

Didnt claire have some problems w/ campaign funding when running for Gov?

[craig]

"How's Sam?"

Graves for President!!!

Just thought I would rattle your chain.

[Religious Right is Neither]

Keep in mind that the individual in charge of Claire's finance reporting was klled in a plane crash during the election, which can cause some chaotic times.
Also, I'm not sure any republican should be harping at wanting to compare Dems vs. GOP at the natl. level on corruption.
With that being said, Claire has time to file an amendment and fix any errors and I'm sure she will.

[Political Moderate]

Graves for President!!!

I'm still quivering at that thought...
and I read it ten minutes ago. It took that long for me to calm down enough to respond.

May my heart be still...

Excuse me, I'm getting the vapors again just typing this...

[BeProudAmerica]

I can not believe how blind some are to Claire. I an addition to this little fiasco, she is also trying to be able to get future contributions to pay off a loan to herself from a campaign 4-5 years ago. Legally, I think she is findling loopholes to do it, but ethically we all know it is wrong, that is the problem I have with her.

Oh remember she is the one fighting corruption in Washington, yeah right

[craig]

BPA,
Welcome back, haven't seen you post in a while. Nice to have another reasonable conservative on the thread. I agree with you on Claire, but she is like Teflon, I don't think this will stick to her.

[Political Moderate]

Here's an idea to consider.
It's entirely possible the reason nothing sticks to Claire involves her being innocent of wrongdoing.
I know it may surprise those on the right, but we liberals snuck a concept into the Constitution called "due process".
In Claire's situation, it appears the accusations melt away under the light of "due process" not teflon.
But, keep on giving her hell. Every unsuccessful assault upon the Constitution makes it that much stronger...and the Union that much the better.

[craig]

I will consider you accusing me of "assaulting the constitution" tounge in cheek. If you truly believe Claire is innocent then I have been giving you WAY too much benifit of the doubt. You are not that naive (sp). There are three things;
1. What you think
2. What you know
3. What you can prove
Claire is 2 out of 3.

[Political Moderate]

My point remains Claire, and everyone else, deserves the chance to defend themselves from an ALLEGATION from a Federal agency, that collections of money exceeded Federal allowances from individuals.
Just because a Federal accountant says something appears amiss doesn't mean that it is... That's what we need to wait to see.
Hopefully, I would feel exactly the same if this was Sam or anyone else. Just because a person is a politican doesn't mean they can't have that much respect.
If you catch me piling on ANYBODY, including you-know-who, in a similar scenario...please call me on it.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep expressing our general impressions (criticism) about Claire (for you) and Sam (for me). Heck, that wouldn't be fun at all.

[Political Moderate]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add that I expected you to take umberage that liberals wrote "due process" into the Constitution.
Not the "assault" swipe.
We all get surprised from time to time how our words touch people.
I do not question your loyalty or patriotism.
Just your party affliation. Sorry.

[try2Bobjective]

Does anybody on this blog really think that there is material difference between democrats and republicans, when it comes to adhering to a general sense of ethics and what is right?

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I have spent a lot of time in the past getting behind a party or candidate only to be disappointed.

I there's a human quality that allows us to do a lot of good, but also a part that can succumb to the desire to win, to have power and gain the admiration of others. And this competitive desire can win over us whether we're liberal or conservative - it's a part of being human.

So why don't we wait for the facts to come out before judging? Personally I'll expect the worst and hope to be pleasantly surprised.

Is that being too cynical?

[Political Moderate]

Try2be

Exactly what I'm trying to say...

Thanks for doing a better job than me in articulating this point.

[BeProudAmerica]

Some people don't want to hear the truth. Really folks take a look at the story. Claire accept some donations that were outside the rules, yes it was a small amount in the grand scheme but still unethical. So what do the Feds say, oh if it was an accounting error or if the money is given back all is good.

So the just of the story is that funds were collected illegally but since it was such a small amount we will just point our finger at you. And I don't really have a problem with that and the process of the law. But it is just another unethical move made by McCaskill.

Also, no comments on her other pending campaign finance trick she is trying to pull. Our upstanding Senator is going to try to use the funds that she will receive as Senator in donations to pay HERSELF back a million plus loan she gave her campaign for Governor. Boy she really is making a change in Washington.