skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Showing posts with label
July 2009 fundraising reports.
Show all posts
Showing posts with label
July 2009 fundraising reports.
Show all posts
Jim Barnett continues to thumb his nose at the FEC and the public's right to know.A review of documents submitted by the Barnett campaign to the FEC reveals that they waited until the last day to respond to an FEC request for additional information that the campaign refused to include in a second quarter report. The campaign again refused to include the same type of information in their third quarter report, and again the FEC has requested additional clarification.
However when the campaign mistakenly began with a zero balance on their third quarter report, which essentially caused the Barnett campaign to appear as though they had much less cash on hand than was actually there, the mistake was corrected in just over two weeks. Why is the Barnett campaign able to respond so quickly when it might make the campaign look bad but drags its feet to the very last second when it involves complying with federal law?
Because of the third quarter goof, Barnett has shown that he and his staff are fully capable of recognizing a mistake and correcting it quickly. Apparently the only difference between these two problems is Barnett's desire to make himself look good versus doing what's lawful and in the public's best interests.
The inability to submit a full and complete report is baffling. Barnett's November 2nd amended report includes a $1,000 contribution from the mod squad's favorite Steve Cloud. Yet his employer is listed as "undisclosed." Are we to believe that the Barnett campaign was unable to find out the employer for former Republican National Committeeman Stephen Cloud?
Barnett's lack of respect for the law and the public should be questioned at length, especially in light of his continued disregard for the law as evidenced by this December 10, 2009 request for information from the FEC, and his now proven ability to respond in a timely manner to reporting mistakes.
The real Jim Barnett is beginning to emerge; one that cares about his public image but little about the public itself.
Jim Barnett received three serious citations from the Federal Elections Commission regarding his July 2009 campaign finance report.
The letter, dated September 9, shows that just a "preliminary review" of his report turned up multiple errors. The letter continues, "Failure to adequately respond by the response date noted above (October 15) could result in an audit or enforcement action."
As noted before (here and here), Barnett failed to list a single occupation or employer for his donors. This is a serious oversight and it's hard to understand how a seasoned politician like Barnett allowed this to happen.
The FEC outlined three separate steps the campaign must take to obtain the missing occupation and employer information. Several of these may be a problem for the Barnett campaign should the FEC decide to audit their records.
According to the letter, Barnett must, "include a clear and conspicuous request for the contributor information and must inform the contributor of the requirements of federal law for the reporting of such information," in the original solicitation for funds. I have no idea if the Barnett campaign has been doing this, but I would imagine they haven't otherwise the information would have been included on the original report.
The FEC continues that, "if the information is not provided, you must make one follow-up, stand alone effort to obtain this information, regardless of whether the contribution(s) was solicited or not. This effort must occur no later than 30 days after receipt of the contribution."
This may be a problem for the Barnett campaign. Clearly we're several months out from any contributions that would have been included in a July 2009 finance report.
The FEC also notes Barnett's failure to provide all information regarding LLC and partnership business contributions. There's not even a "requested" in the occupation/employer fields for these donors.
Barnett also failed to list whether his $100K "loan" was from his personal funds or a bank. I'm pretty sure I could answer that one for the FEC, but I think I'll let the Barnett campaign handle it since they seem to have so many other items that need clarification as well.
I'm really shocked that the Barnett campaign didn't go ahead and file an amended report a few days after July 15. It isn't like the FEC isn't going to notice you haven't reported all information as required by law. The fact the campaign waited for a notice from the FEC rather than being proactive about fixing the problem only provides further evidence the campaign is deliberately withholding information.
If Barnett won't comply with simple campaign finance laws, how will he act if elected to Congress and in a position of considerable power? His intentional omission of required information raises serious questions about his trust with the public.
Missing employer and occupation information may seem trivial, but the fact the campaign has yet to report this information, knowing full well what the law requires and having received a serious notice from the FEC, speaks volumes about the attitude of Jim Barnett.
Rob Wasinger posted his numbers late tonight with some noticeable first district contributions. A quick glance though still shows a lot of Virginia's, Washington's and even a Hawaii. But it looks like the first district curse is finally over.
Total raised around $67,000 but spent a noticable $54,000. That would seem to be rather unsustainable, but perhaps there's other sources yet to be tapped.
Charts, other stuff in a day or two.
Sen. Tim Huelskamp reported nearly $80,000 in contributions this quarter. That's a rather healthy amount, but no where close to the amounts raised by Mann and Barnett. He has around $235,000 on hand, which still competes with any candidate in the race. The number isn't shocking and is rather expected, right in line with his last report.
The number of unitemized contributions continues to be quite impressive at over $25,000. Those are folks that he can continue to tap again and again for contributions. Most itemized contributions came from Kansas, although I didn't look at it that closely. The amount of money he's been able to raise from the first district is just simply amazing. I'm shocked there's that much out there.
The big news is former Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee coming to Kansas to headline a fundraiser for Huelskamp at Hutchinson. You can see some coverage here, here and here. Huckabee overwhelmingly won the Kansas Presidential caucus and will be a big name event for Huelskamp. That's in addition to endorsements from two former Kansas gubernatorial candidates. More on that later.
Still nothing from Wasinger. I'll put up the pie charts later this week along with some cash on hand and other analysis from this quarter and totals to date.
Tracey Mann clocked in today with a notable $157,000 in individual contributions. That doesn't include nearly $14,000 of in-kind donations. It did look as though there were a lot of family names listed, but that is negligible. It looks as though the Johnson County transplant had a very good quarter raising more in individual contributions than former GOP candidate Jim Barnett.
And to follow up on Barnett as noted last night, every donor has "requested" list for an employer and occupation. I'm still curious what the FEC is going to think of that. I have no idea if there are any repercussions to filling a report without required information, but it is pretty clear that the Barnett campaign had plenty of time to compile the info. In fact, they still have time to file their quarterly report. Huelskamp and Wasinger still haven't filed theirs, so why the Barnett campaign would choose to file early and potentially run aground with the FEC with their very first report is a bit interesting.
More tomorrow.
A quick check of the FEC website shows Jim Barnett has loaned himself $100,000. This was an expected move on his part, with more to come almost a certainty. No results yet from Huelskamp, Mann or Wasinger.
Boldra reported just under $2,000 raised, with just over $6,000 on hand. Looks like Bolrda will remain a minor candidate.
Barnett also took in a handsome amount of contributions, just under $150,000. And I see a lot of Kansas addresses. However, I also see he's listed "requested" for occupation for every single contribution. That's not going to fly with the FEC and it makes no sense at all why he's done it, especially since some of them wouldn't be hard to figure out. State Rep. Don Hill for example donated. Why list "requested" for his occupation? It's not like it's a big secret.
That's all for tonight. More tomorrow or Thursday as more reports come online.
Exciting news from the Huelskamp for Congress campaign! Sen. Huelskamp announced tonight that they've met their June fundraising goal, making it the best month ever for the campaign!
This is such an important announcement from the campaign. With hundreds of thousands of dollars of out-of-state money financing opponents campaigns, it's essential that Huelskamp be able to rely on the citizens of the first district and Kansas to show who the proven conservative is in this race. It looks like Sen. Huelskamp has once again accomplished that.
Sen. Huelskamp is also leading in the endorsements race. This is important of course, but money raised from the first district and Kansas is essentially like a vote from the people. Anyone who is unable to raise money from the district they want to represent has a significant problem trying to get someone to vote for them.
The fight certainly isn't over. There are many more quarterly reports to go. In addition to significant out-of-state funding, there is also the possibility of candidates using their own personal wealth to finance their campaigns. But with continued generosity by everyday Kansans to the Huelskamp campaign, it looks like they'll be able to go toe to toe with anyone in the race.
Quarterly reports should begin to be available Tuesday night into Wednesday and Thursday. I'll be out of town but will try to have a breakdown of the numbers as quickly as possible. With the announcement today from the Huelskamp campaign, I'm excited to see how everyone else performed.
Tonight is the final deadline for contributions to first district candidates and we'll know in a few weeks how everyone made out. This will be the first reporting period for Tracey Mann. Mann recently moved from Johnson County to Salina to run for the first district seat. Not much has been heard from the Mann campaign except a few Hutch News articles on his support for Democrat Jim Slattery against stalwart Republican Pat Roberts.
Rob Wasinger will be turning in another interesting report. In the past two cycles Wasinger hasn't been able to itemize a single contribution from the fist district. I haven't been able to find any news articles or data as to how many candidates for federal office have gone two consecutive reporting cycles without even a single contribution from the district they want to represent, but I'd be willing to say three in a row just might be a record.
Wasinger will also be trying to play catch up with Sen. Huelskamp in the overall tally. Even with Wasinger's nearly complete out-of-state financing, he still wasn't able to even be competitive with Huelskamp in overall numbers. In fact, in the last reporting period Huelskamp raised more from the first district alone than Wasinger was able to raise from the rest of the country. That is highly impressive in this economy and in a district that is considered economically depressed in comparison to the rest of the state.
Also keep an eye on Wasinger's expenditures. It was just last February when Wasinger told Roll Call that all of his campaign contributions would be spent in the first district.
"I look at all the money that I've raised, all that money is going to be spent in the district," Wasinger said. "It's my very own contribution to economic growth."
After saying that, Rob went on to file a quarterly report where he spent just over $1,000 out of over $25,000 in expenditures in the first district. That's quite a promise to be breaking. We'll find out in a few weeks if Rob is doing any better on his promise to bring economic growth to the first district.
And then there's Sue Boldra. Her last report was hardly impressive, but she had just jumped into the race. Will her numbers be any better? This one is a make it or break it report for her with six candidates in the race.
Jim Barnett will certainly have some cash on hand. The question is how much of her personal fortune is he willing to invest this time. During the governor's race he pitched in quite a bit of his own cash. There's no indications that he isn't willing to do it one more time.
And finally there's Tim Barker. He's already coughed up $100K of his own money in the last reporting period. Will this one see another cool self contribution?
The next few weeks will be telling. By the way, online contributions given now will be counted toward the next reporting period. However, if you write a check with a June date on it and mail it in right now, I understand it will still be counted toward this just expired reporting period. So be sure and mail out that handsome check to your favorite candidate before time runs out!
Jim Barnett continues to thumb his nose at the FEC and the public's right to know.
