Journal pudge's Journal: WA Democrats Cheat Again 12
In 2000, Democrat Maria Cantwell was elected Senator in Washington, winning a narrow race over incumbent Republican Slade Gorton. She won by 2,229 votes out of 2.5 million cast.
A few months later, she was accused -- and later found guilty -- of campaign finance violations. Cantwell, who financed her own election, put up her $375K home for collateral in a $600K line of credit, against FEC rules which require the collateral to be equal to the value of the loan. She also took out a $4m loan on $5.6m worth of RealNetworks stock, at the lender's prime rate, saving her tens of thousands, against FEC rules which require the rate not be more favorable than another bank customer for the same type of loan.
And to top it all off, she did not disclose either loan until almost three months after the election, instead of weeks before it, and only after receiving two letters from the FEC about the matter.
In the same election cycle, the Democrats in Washington failed to report nearly $6m in donations, mostly in soft money from the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC. Much of that money went to help Cantwell's campaign. The state's Public Disclosure Commission fined the Democrats $250,000 as penalty, with $100,000 of it suspended, as long as they don't do the same type of thing again in the following five years.
Some things don't change.
In the 2004 campaign, the Democrats shifted $400,000 from its federal accounts -- since Patty Murray was a shoo-in for the Senate -- to its state accounts, where the money was desperately needed by Christine Gregoire's campaign for governor. The transfer was never reported. An additional $800,000 in expenditures were never reported.
Automatically, the Democrats will have to pay a fine of $100,000, just because of the previously suspended sum. But much more will likely follow, since this is a second offense.
And as we all know by now, Gregoire won the election by only 129 votes. Could this reporting have made a difference? How can we assume it wouldn't have? You can bet this will be offered as evidence by the Republicans as they continue to make their case that the governor's race should be thrown out. They already have hundreds of illegal votes identified, and now can say that the Democrats violated campaign finance law.
democrats (Score:1)
That sounds like a great idea.
Ooooh campaign finance (Score:1)
I mean, did the dead vote? I understand they tend to vote democrat. Except for zombie churchill t
Re:Ooooh campaign finance (Score:2)
Yes, they did. Several dead people voted in Washington. Also, a few people voted more than once, or voted in Washington and an another state. Worse, apparently (not yet been verified) over a thousand (and counting) convicted felons voted. Also, hundreds of provisional ballots -- the ones that are not legal until they are verified by the auditor's office -- were illegally mixed in with the regular ballots.
On a scale of 1 - 10, this is a 1 on buffer's sliding scale of nationa
Re:Ooooh campaign finance (Score:1)
I was mainly responding to jay's snarky comment with one of my own, because well, I was tired and I'm a bit fed up with the "this invalidates this point" tact in politics atm.
Politics is a funny beast. We're always out to "get" the other guy, and standards te
Re:Ooooh campaign finance (Score:2)
Re:Ooooh campaign finance (Score:2)
This sort of thing happens all of the time in almost every jurisdiction in the country.
I see no evide
Re:Ooooh campaign finance (Score:2)
Agreed.
Since the election system is run by human institutions I don't expect 100% perfection.
Agreed.
But it is, of course, true that the fraud is normally not nearly enough to change the result. When it is, the question remains, what do you do?
You can't take the votes away, because, obviously, you don't know who the people voted for.
the saddest part is... (Score:1)
*sigh*
Re:the saddest part is... (Score:2)
Re:the saddest part is... (Score:1)
Re:the saddest part is... (Score:2)
2000 election (Score:2)