The $387,000 Question

Where's the MUR? (0.00 / 0)

You got me hooked on that idea.

I have a strong hunch for the reason why the campaign is not showing anyone any journals of the cash out the door.  They never bother to collect the information.  'They' didn't work for the campaign after August 8th.  So many people were fired after that primary.  I bet that info is in the trunks of cars, and rental lot trash cans. 

What will the FEC do if there is no accounting for the money?

---

by: drowsy @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:41:14 AM CST

Today (0.00 / 0)

The MUR number should be assigned and told to the Lamont campaign by today.

Even if the FEC does find that Lieberman didn't keep any of these records - a finding which is both likely and won't happen until after the election - they would theoretically try to get the Lieberman campaign to remedy their mistake, ie stop breaking the law. But I don't know how that is done after the election and I don't know what recourse there is for these violations.

http://holdfastblog.com

---

by: Matt Browner Hamlin @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:46:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

A fine (0.00 / 0)

I'm pretty sure the FEC's only enforcement mechanism is a fine.  If they uncover evidence that the money was used in violation of some other law (other than the campaign finance reporting guidelines), they would turn that information over to Justice.

---

by: Gabe @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 10:48:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Quick followup (0.00 / 0)

I think the story line here, with no proof of wrong doing, is 'Why does Joe Lieberman think election laws do not apply to him?"  Ask him that over and over, until he shows reporters from a few sources the journals, and not just sympathetic ones. 

He can even stipulate that they can't leave his offices with the journals.

---

by: drowsy @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:47:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

close (0.00 / 0)

The frame is...

Joe Lieberman is a law breaker, he doesn't believe in the rule of law. If he didn't bother to follow the law in this case, then how do we know and how can we trust his word that this was not money used to buy votes?

Rinse.
Repeat.
 

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

---

by: Met00 @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:53:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And we already know... (4.00 / 1)

...that he could care less about the constitution considering his vote in favor of the torture bill. So why wouldn't he violate campaign finance laws with impunity. Joe LIEberman exists within the same bubble as GW Bush - the rules of the game are different for them than they are for the rest of us.

---

by: CTPatriot @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 09:59:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No disrespect but... (0.00 / 0)

I think we need a one liner that crams "joe", "election" and then a sentiment that seals the deal.

Something even Mark Davis can say.

I want an undecided in the booth to say '''hmm.... Lieberman... election... breaks law...." something like that.

But I'm no Madison Ave one liner genius....

---

by: drowsy @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 10:01:58 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Seek a remedy NOW (4.00 / 3)

The Connecticut Democratic State Committee, a third party voting rights group or some other Connecticut organization w/election law experience needs to bring a suit against the Federal Election Commission.  The suit would be for an emergency injunction demanding the FEC to use its civil enforcement powers to stop a known and ongoing violation of federal election laws.

The ultimate goal is to choke off illegal disbursements from the Lieberman campaign’s undocumented and unmonitored slush fund.

The appropriate court imposed remedy would force the FEC to put an auditor/trustee in place to oversee all cash disbursements from the Lieberman campaign.  Also, the Court could require that all cash disbursements go through a single monitored bank account that will leave an objective and reviewable trail of how much cash is spent.  The trustee’s role will be to insure legally required documentation of the persons and entities receiving Lieberman cash and the purpose for which the case is disbursed.

The trustee/auditor will have no control over how the money is spent.  Rather, s/he will only act as a record-keeper to insure that all individual disbursements do not exceed the federal limit and that they are all docketed.  The only gate keeping function would be against illegal activity, nothing else would be encumbered.

Basically, this request for an emergency injunction will demand that the FEC remedy the Lieberman campaign illegal cash disbursements and require that the FEC to monitor the Lieberman campaign treasury's observance of, and compliance with, federal campaign spending laws.

Generally speaking, these violations of campaign finance laws eventually involve the campaigns receiving heavy fines months after the election.  I’m sure Lieberman’s campaign has already received or will receive FEC complaints.  Complaints and investigations, however, only punish illegal behavior after the fact -- fines do not prevent the illegal behavior.  In this case, the FEC already knows of the violations and has near certain knowledge that the Lieberman campaign can and will likely violate the law again in the days leading up to Tuesday’s election.

A federal court in Connecticut (D.C. Fed. Court I suppose has jurisdiction as well), should require that the FEC do its job now rather than wait until after all the underlying policies and laws are flouted and violated, once more, in another election.  The FEC has all the evidence it needs, today, to require a compliance remedy against the Lieberman campaign.

The type of injunction this post envisions does not negatively affect the Lieberman campaign’s ability to spend one legal penny.  It does not even require the disclosure of one legal penny more than the law already demands.  This remedy will only seek monitoring of existing legal reporting obligations by the Lieberman treasury.  Therefore it will be impossible for the Lieberman campaign to make a good faith objection to a Court order requiring compliance.  Any objection by the Lieberman campaign would ultimately be grounded in a transparent motivation to subvert the laws designed to root out corruption, money laundering and vote buying.  Try to sell that to the Court or even the lazy Connecticut press.

If the FEC and/or a court pushes the Lieberman campaign, will Lieberman agree that sunshine on campaign finance makes for a healthy process? -- or will the campaign recoil at the thought of its filthy motives receiving a healthy dose of judicial disinfectant?  Their response will speak volumes and offer everyone (press, voters etc.) an excellent pre-election education on what’s happening with all that Lieberman campaign money flowing out the back door.

Let the Lieberman campaign fights an emergency injunction by saying "we don't want to obey the law."  A court can still enjoin the FEC from allowing an open and notorious violation of campaign finance laws from occurring as the general election arrives.  The question will be whether the FEC will sanction a sleazy and egregious showering of yet another illegal +/- half million $$ onto the streets in the lead-up to next Tuesday’s voting.

I’m not a Connecticut campaign finance attorney.  It would be nice to know that someone is taking this criminality to the authorities and demanding the FEC to do its job.  I'd like to think that someone is forcing the FEC to protect voters from the precise corruption our federal campaign finance laws are designed to prevent.  A demand for an emergency injunction is always an uphill fight.  However, demanding that someone stop breaking the law and stop molesting public policy is ALWAYS a meritorious judicial pursuit and may bring about the ultimate goal of stopping the Lieberman campaign from flooding the streets with untraceable cash.

The key is for an organization like the CT Dem. Party to get an election attorney to gin up a complaint and file the damn thing ASAP.  This will at least force a court to address and highlight for the FEC the money laundering abuses of the Lieberman campaign.

cl

---

by: caoimhin laochdha @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 10:00:51 AM CST

Nice tactic. (0.00 / 0)

I love every every bit of this post.  Fitting for the guy who would have allowed Andersen to continue to audit Enron.

---

by: drowsy @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 10:07:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dodd was the point man on that (0.00 / 0)

Dodd was the one who took the lead on preventing the reforms.

http://www.jewishwor...

---

by: Roy_Hinkley @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 10:41:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

I like the post but this is unfortunately not factually correct:

The FEC has all the evidence it needs, today, to require a compliance remedy against the Lieberman campaign.

The only evidence the FEC has is the formal complaint filed by Tom Swan on October 23rd. They have not done any investigation nor collected any evidence from the Lieberman campaign because they cannot do so before a MUR number is assigned to the case and the Lieberman campaign provides them with information in response (up to 15 days after the MUR number is assigned).

So, no, they don't have all the evidence they need. But we do. We know the truth and we don't need a federal investigation to tell us that Lieberman broke the law.

http://holdfastblog.com

---

by: Matt Browner Hamlin @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 10:13:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

For an injunction -- there is PLENTY of justification (0.00 / 0)

A court will have all the evidence needed to justify an injunction. 

Whether there is a fine or whether the Lieberman campaign could intervene and raise an affirmative defense and show good cause (i.e. all the records have been kept in accordance w/Fed. law etc.) is another issue.

For purposes of an emergency injunction, there is a colorable claim -- TODAY -- to demand action by the FEC.

The point of an injunction to PREVENT harm or to prevent harm from becoming worse.  The issue in an injunction is NOT TO PUNISH or to fine or to find guilt.  That would come, if at all, after the election based on an investigation of the activities leading up to the primary election.

There is ample, indeed substantial, evidence in Lieberman's filings to suggest an ongoing violation of federal law.  That is what is needed to justify an injuction.

cl

---

by: caoimhin laochdha @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 10:27:08 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Follow-up re: 15 days (0.00 / 0)

The point of an injunction is to protect the voters, not to punish criminality by the Lieberman campaign.

The Court would look at the issue from the standpoint of harm to the voters stemming from blatant violations of campaign finance laws rather than looking at the punitive powers of the FEC relative to the disposition of prior violations.

Injunctions are used where no other adequate remedy exists at law.  Obviously reviewing violations of campaign finance laws AFTER the fact does adequately protect voters who know a violation is coming.  Voters have a right to expect clean and fair elections next week and not just a fine imposed on violators months after Election Day.  This is particularly true when the FEC is on notice that this particular campaign already coughed out one of (if not the) largest undocumented disbursements of street cash in the history of federally regulated Senate campaigns in this state.

Injunctions protect from additional damage while the investigation is ongoing.  There is enough to get the ball rolling and to start protecting the voters/public now from irreparable harm next Tuesday.

cl

---

by: caoimhin laochdha @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 10:49:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

To be succesful... (0.00 / 0)

Wouldn't you have to show some evidence that a law was broken though?  I grant that filing in federal court would force the Lieberman campaign to publicly reveal their journal (if it exists), but assuming it exists and it facially doesn't violate any laws, wouldn't teh request for injunction fail?

---

by: Gabe @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 11:10:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes (4.00 / 4)

And I would welcome a "motion denied" on those grounds.

However, the reason we are discussing this is because Lieberman's campaign played fast and loose with the law.  They almost certainly broke it; and at this point, it appears that they are just waiting out the election to take their lumps in the months to come after everyone forgets about this.  At a minimum, every indication is that they broke the law and the Lieberman campaign, DESPITE A STRONG INCENTIVE TO PROVE OTHERWISE, refuses to show simple minimum baseline compliance with the law.  They could make this issue go away in a day by opening their books required for auditing.  They would benefit from a decision to disclose yet they chose to evade.  The level of subterfuge and furtive behavoir speaks volumes.

Given their history and the situation they are in now, they have an incentive to shove even more cash on to the streets since $387,000.00 was not quite enough for them in August.  They have an incentive, given the primary results and the fact that they are getting away with it up to now, to engage in even more egregious behavoir in the final hours before the general election.

I welcome a showing of lawful compliance by the Lieberman campaign.  I welcome the tooth fairy too.

No matter what the FEC does after the election, it will not influence the behavoir of the Lieberman campaign before the election.  The FEC is on notice of the overwhelming likelihood of massive, large scale campaign finance law violations. If an equitable remedy is not triggered now, it's lost.

cl

---

by: caoimhin laochdha @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 11:40:30 AM CST

[ Parent ]

$387K (0.00 / 0)

Another question the media should be asking--  Why does Lieberschnitzel have to use cash to win the hearts and minds of the electorate?  Lamont has an army working for him as VOLUNTEERS!

Is it 2008 yet?

---

by: global yokel @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 12:34:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gotcha! (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for the reply!

---

by: Gabe @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 13:09:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Joe doesn't take questions anymore. (0.00 / 0)

He's in full protection mode.  In the absence of the MSM finding a smoking gun we're out of luck. The Times won't throw the resources at it and all the other papers won't want to look like idiots for endorsing Joe at the same time they are exposing him.

The public doesn't understand the issue well enough for a federal suit to seem like anything other than sour grapes.

The media have abandoned their responsibility.  How they can act like Tammy Sun's non-answers are good enough I have no idea.

The worst part is that whatever he did in August will be repeated two or three fold this week.  We'll have a Senator who spread over $1 miiilion in small bills around the state (the state where the Governor just got out of prison).

Anybody know who endorsed Rowland in 2002?? 

It's Morning in America. Too bad Reagan's not here to see it. - Me

---

by: roguetrader2000 @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 15:54:57 PM CST

Remember principle? (0.00 / 0)

This should go forward on principle, not on pragmatism.

Remember, the ones who put pragmatism first are the ones not supporting Ned.

In injunction would wake up the somnolent media that someone thinks there is reason to take a look at these things, and cramp their style if they intend to brazenly buy votes or hand out cash again.

Where is their state headquarters and who do we know who can keep an eye on it?  Shifts?  Supposedly the cash arrived daily from a courier in the pre-primary days.  if that's the case, then someone ought to see a regular visitor if it's happening again.

---

by: greenpeas @ Mon Oct 30, 2006 at 20:58:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]