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.

[craig]

Try2,
Well said.

[Greg]

Craig and PM;
Really enjoy reading your commentary on the various subject matter. Your both passionate without going over the top. Refering to Clair as teflon is not a correct characterization. I think of her as "stained" and to PM's credit, it is because of "Due Process." But just because someone is not prosecuted and convicted does not mean that they are innocent. I have told my own children that they need to be aware of how they conduct themselves and how the people around them conduct themselves. I stress that the actions of those around them (their friends) is going to be a reflection on them, like it or not. Reliance upon a "you can't prove I did anything wrong" mentality just doesn't cut it. If more politicians had a zero tolerance policy for these gray area activities, we would all be able to view them with a little more respect.

[Engawyer]

Well, this thread has taken a really unfair turn towards staining McCaskill with terms such as "bribery," and "fraud." I don't think that is what the post said, or even implied. I doubt that she knew anything about who was giving an extra 28k towards the end of a highly visible campaign race against a strong incumbent.

These types of threads are extremely damaging. If you want to stigmatize her, so as to defeat her next time, you guys are off to a great start.

This is about following the rules, which Claire always seems to have a hard time doing. Her "above the law" attitude must be from her days as prosecutor when she thought it was O.K. to allow employees to cook and distribute meth in her office.

[James Berridge]

My sister was the FEC Compliance Director for Claire's senate campaign. Some of you may well recall that a few days after my sister was killed on July 29, the FEC sent a letter of inquiry to the campaign basically asking (please note I am paraphrasing), "Hey, where's your pre-primary report? It was due on July 27 and we can't seem to find it here in our offices." My sister's coworkers, still reeling from her death, found a registered mail receipt in her office proving that the report was mailed on July 24. They supplied this that day to the FEC, which in turn said "Yep, our bad...we've got your report right here." As I learned about my sister's work in the days following her loss, I found out that these types of inquiries from the FEC are very common.

As some of you may recall, the GOP took that same initial FEC inquiry and tried very hard to get in a little political dig at my sister's work the very day her body was cremated. Alas, that charge did not stick. The MOGOP backed off, pulled its press release containing the original false assertions, the FEC published an update on its web site stating that all was in full compliance and Paul Sloca stated the same on air to a St. Louis television station.

All I ask is for folks to wait for ALL of the facts to come in before drawing any conclusions. People failing to do so this past summer caused the GOP to lose face and my family (especially our mother, who was SO proud of Missy) a great deal of pain at an already incredibly difficult time.

Thanks much!

[BeProudAmerica]

Funny how eveyone is claiming Claire's innocence because of no charges or being able to avoid charges.

Let's see there was a certian Mark Foley who got into some trouble last year and was bashed all around (I am not defending Foley in anyway). But the last I have known he has not been charged with any crimes so we should let him off the hook also and recognize him as an upstanding citizen like Claire.

[Political Moderate]

BPA---No one is giving Claire a free ride. All that is asked is a little time to allow her to respond. What's wrong with permitting the full light of truth to shine on this invetigation.
If she did wrong...then we need to react with appropriate rightous indignation. As someone said, she made following the rules an important part of her campaign.
If she didn't do wrong, however...then we should move on.

[BeProudAmerica]

PM

No No.. There were many posts in here about how she has been able to avoid prosecution from things in the past so that must me she is clean. I was just using Foley as an example, he was never prosecuted of anything so he must be clean.

Still no comment on how she is trying to use the system to give herself back money from lobbying money? All the Claire backers seem to be avoiding that one.

Talent's campaign has ALSO been asked by the FEC to explain receiving excessive contributions...in all over $80,000 worth. They have also been asked to supply additional information on 48 hour notices the may not have filed. Here is a link to the actual letter sent to the Talent campaign:

http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecgifpdf/

Indeed, these letters are quite common due to the sheer amount of unsolicited contributions candidates receive from people who don't know their total contributions in a given election cycle have exceeded what the FEC allows. I am sure both campaign offices will care for these letters for additional information appropriately.

The MOGOP is now linking to this post. To Paul Sloca: You may want to read the attached letter.

[BeProudAmerica]

By the way in the link in the previous post doesn't go anywhere.

[Political Moderate]

BPA- The link failed for me too. But, for the sake of fair play, I want to go on record that if this story is correct, I plan on waiting to hear the facts...not the accusation before jumping on Jim about this issue.
At this moment, I'm thinking good things about Mr. Talent.

[James Berridge]

Just for fun, I visited the FEC web site tonight and found the following public records:

The FEC sent three separate letters to the Talent campaign in a single twelve day period just this month asking for additional information on contributions that may have exceeded FEC limits.

The first letter (dated 1/11/2007) lists over 70 "Excessive and or Prohibited" contributions to Talent from individuals and PACs totaling just over $254,000. (FEC Display Image No. 27039332870)

The second letter to Talent's campaign (also dated 1/11/2007) lists 14-16 "Excessive and or Prohibited" contributions to Talent from individuals and PACs totaling just over $66,000. (FEC Display Image 27039332888)

The third letter to Talent's campaign (dated 1/23/2007) lists 22 or more "Excessive and or Prohibited" contributions to Talent from individuals and PACs totaling just over $82,000. (FEC Display Image 27039345002 )

This link should get you to the page linking to the letters referenced above:

http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00368183
(Look under the "2006" grid and scroll down to the three items labeled "Request For Additional Information" dated 1/11/07, 1/11/07 and 1/23/07. From there, you can view the .pdf file for each).

Thus, in those twelve days, the Talent campaign was asked by the FEC for additional information concerning over 106 "potentially excessive and or prohibited" contributions totaling just over $400,000.

Since my sister's death six months this very, the McCaskill campaign has received exactly ONE such letter asking for the additional information described in Dave Helling's original post above (19 potential over-contributions totaling about $28,000). Prior to my sister's death on 7/29, the campaign received no inquiries about possible over-contributions, according to the FEC web site's document directory.

Despite these facts, I stand by my earlier assertions...but this time I will say that both campaigns deserve the time the FEC allows to either re-attribute, further explain or refund these contributions. Obviously, Talent's folks have a lot more work to do there.

Paul Sloca...I hope you will continue to link readers who view you recent press release to this posting.

Thank you!
Jim