FEC Flags Whitnum for Failing to File Financial Report

The end of last week (4.00 / 1)

That was written July 17th. As of today she hasn't filed, and probably can't afford the fine either. The thing is though her "fine" is based on activity, which is zero. The base fine is $100.

EXAMPLE 2: Late Filer of Non-Election Sensitive Report with Relatively Little Activity, No Prior Violations.

A committee files its July Quarterly Report on August 4. The report contains $100 in receipts and disbursements, and the committee has no prior violations.

Applicable formula:

Penalty = The lesser of: the level of activity in the report; or
[base amount + (set amount x number of days late)]

Penalty = The lesser of: $100 or [$25 + ($5 x 20)]

Penalty = The lesser of: $100 or $125

Penalty = $100

http://www.fec.gov/pages/broch...

---

by: Scarce @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 13:16:26 PM UTC

Other revealing facts (0.00 / 0)

I hope TrueBlueCT doesn't mind me quoting him from CTLP, but he makes some great points:

Worse for Ms. Whitnum than her Failure to File timely FEC reports, is the fact that she did file a very revealing Personal Financial Disclosure.

A break-down of her 2007 earned income, (less than $4,200 in total):

$2,414 Board of Ed
$ 285 Great Stuff
$ 815 Home Depot
$ 665 First Choice Staffing [...]

Can we place bets as to when the Greenwich Time, the Stamford Advocate, the Norwalk Hour, and the Connecticut Post will let their readers know the following about Ms. Whitnum:

1) She's essentially unemployed
2) She's non-compliant with the FEC
3) She paid people to collect the signatures which put her on the ballot, (which explains #2, she's hiding that awful truth.)
4) In reality she's a one-woman show with no base of support.
5) Cycle-to-date she's raised all of $200!

But no, instead they let her carry on as if she's a true candidate with real grassroots support.

---

by: CaptCT @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 14:29:59 PM UTC

She lost $1,495 to The Ameri-World Group in small claims court (0.00 / 0)

WHITNUM VS. THE AMERI-WORLD GROUP in 2007.

And another $800
here in 2008 for WHITNUM VS. SCHNEIDER.

She's not doing so well.  

---

by: Sue @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 16:15:53 PM UTC

She Won Both of Those Cases (0.00 / 0)

Not doing well in that she had to sue to get the money I suppose.  

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 16:36:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]