skip to main |
skip to sidebar
What is happening in the Barnett campaign? Is he using so much brain power to keep track of which position he's flipped to that he's forgotten how to file a campaign finance report?I know I said that the campaign might have problems providing the information requested by the Federal Elections Commission, but I honestly thought that even if they didn't have the information that they would get it by the October 15 deadline to avoid a possible FEC audit.
I apparently was wrong.
Jim Barnett filed an amended campaign finance report for July but still failed to supply specific information requested by the FEC. Some occupation information is listed but employer data is still largely absent from the report. But instead of "requested" appearing where an employer should be, "undisclosed" appears instead.
Does this mean the FEC will audit the Barnett campaign to ensure they have made a good faith effort to obtain the missing information? Remember, the FEC notified the campaign 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."
Of course, the story wouldn't be complete without noting that Barnett filed an October report with the exact same errors. Multiple donors have either "undisclosed" for employers information or "requested" for both occupation and employer info. And if an occupation is identified, the Barnett campaign has apparently decided that's good enough to list as an employer as well. Don't you know you can be a "physician" and be employed by "physician?"
Again, so many of these just don't make sense. David Wysong is listed as a $500 donor but has "requested" in both fields. Really, the Barnett campaign can't figure out what state Senator David Wysong does and who he works for? Is the public supposed to buy that?
The Barnett campaign's blatant disregard for public disclosure laws is mind-boggling. The FEC should launch an immediate investigation.
Huelskamp was the run away winner in the total contributions race with over $181,000 raised in the third quarter. Barnett reported $105,000, although exactly where that cash came from nobody has a clue. Rob Wasinger raised $106,000 mostly from, surprise surprise, the east coast. Tracey Mann and Monte Shadwick brought up the rear with $60,000 and $26,000 respectively.
Huelskamp was also the winner in cash on hand at the end of the third quarter with $379,000 left. Next was Barnett at $300,000, even though he once again messed up his summary report. Tracey Mann, still holding on to a lot of family cash was at $198,000. Rob Wasinger was at $194,000 and finally Shadwick clocked in at $18,000.
One final observation; my favorite contributor.
That would be former Kansas Republican Party National Committeeman, and liberal Republican's favorite son, Steve Cloud. He was a $1,000 donor to the conservative Barnett campaign.
Oh yea, he's an "Executive" and is employed by "Requested." That's the large firm that seems to employ many of Barnett's donors in Kansas.
Looks like the pay isn't too shabby at "Requested." I think I'll apply.
Sen. Tim Huelskamp posted significant fundraising numbers for the third quarter. In an email from the campaign Huelskamp reported receiving over $181,000 in contributions in the third quarter alone. Huelskamp showed just under $400,000 in cash on hand, putting him the drivers seat for the 2010 primary election.
Results from other candidates haven't been posted yet and no announcements from the campaigns have been made. Some of the questions to be answered later tonight are:
- Will Jim Barnett correct his July quarterly report? The FEC reprimand cites an October 15 deadline.
- Will Barnett lend himself substantial cash once again?
- Will Rob Wasinger post any significant numbers? Will he once again falter in first district contributions?
According to the candidate himself, “How much money you can raise is not an indication of what kind of campaign you will run, or what kind of Congressman you will be, but it is a measurement of how hard the candidate is working. These numbers show we’re taking this race seriously."
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.
What is happening in the Barnett campaign? Is he using so much brain power to keep track of which position he's flipped to that he's forgotten how to file a campaign finance report?
