MyDD :: Lieberman Slush Fund Update

Lieberman Slush Fund Update - An FEC Complaint

by Matt Stoller, Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:16:46 PM EST

So far, Joe Lieberman has put more untraceable money into the streets of Connecticut in his Senate campaign than Nixon did nationwide in his Presidential campaign. I imagine that will change as he begins to account for some of the money, but that's the state of play right now. Lieberman's problem with his campaign slush fund is getting press, hitting the AP and other outlets around the state. It could get worse unless the Lieberman campaign follows through on promises it made this weekend to lay out in detail where the $387k in cash went (as is legally required).

Today, Lamont campaign manager Tom Swan filed an FEC complain against the Lieberman campaign possible violations of FEC regulations. Lieberman's spokeswoman, Tammy Sun, said she would get a required petty cash log by Monday. So far she hasn't produced it.

Some of this money went to paying staffers, but let's not be naive. No one spends $400K in cash in two weeks on a street operation without it going places it shouldn't.

This is about integrity, and Joe's willingness to say anything and do anything to win. I expect him to counterattack with some meaningless piece of confusing disclosure argument against Ned, but Ned hasn't committed a crime. Did Joe? We don't know.

And here are pictures from the press conference.

Update: You can sign co-sign the FEC complaint here.

Tags: Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman, CT-Sen, Connecticut, Alan Schlesinger (all tags)

Permalink :: 10 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Lieberman Slush Fund Update - An FEC Complaint (none / 0)

matt -

is wild speculation allowed?

if so..... don't forget there was something else going on before the primary - gathering all the signatures needed to get lieberman on ballot as the C4L candidate. could the slush fund have had anything to do with that? 'cuz as urban pirate asked over at fld, if the slush fund was used to pay out of state "volunteers" to collect signatures, doesn't that make signatures invalid? a good reason to keep the names off the books?

http://tinyurl.com/y7ru4r

/wild speculation

by selise on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 02:56:17 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Slush Fund Update - An FEC Complaint (none / 0)

I think that the Sec of State in CT has a good rep. Plus I think she felt that the CfL run was like taking advantage of a loophole.
I doubt that she would have let something like that happen.

I think the real story is the desperation with which Joe responded when it was clear he was not ready for a fair fight in the primary.

And possibly the cynicism that comes with handing out moo on street corners. If they or the their contractor put ads in the paper or went to legitimate temp agencies to get their workers, then that's one thing. If it comes out that they targeted certain neighborhoods, knowing that a certain amount of goodwill would be raised by spreading out cash, then I'd say that is unethical.

by drowsy on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Slush Fund Update (none / 0)

How do you imagine this would have been stopped? On what basis could the SecState have determined that the circulators were not legally competent?

by Adam B on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:46:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dodd and Schumer should have been there (none / 0)

Where is Schumer? He'll get his mug in front of a camera for ANYTHING; he is a known camera hound. Here is the issue that will put a Democrat in the US Senate and he's no where to be found.

by Rowena on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:01:06 PM EST

Re: Dodd and Schumer should have been there (none / 0)

Schumer WANTS lieberman to win. It is no secret.
That is a fact. Why would Schumer want Lamont to win? Schumer is the same guy who openly talked about backing Bolton because of his support for Israel.

I would not be surprised if Schumer is offering behind the scenes support for Lieberman.

by Pravin on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 08:01:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Lieberman Slush Fund Update - An FEC Complaint (none / 0)

Sounds like Jepsen handled this beautifully at the press conference today, saying that petty cash is normally used for "pizza for volunteers and paperclips" not to "fund a massive ground organization". Hope this gets lots of press.

by grayslady on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:06:47 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Slush Fund Update - An FEC Complaint (none / 0)

Matt,

The sin is not in Joe violating the law, it is in the uncontrovertible fact that Lamont may possibly have known that Joe violated the law and may possibly have sat on that information until it could possibly have been used to the biggest political advantage. Obviously, Joe is the wounded party here.

Or something like that...

DANGERSTEIN will make it all clear soon.

by ThomasAllen on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:18:23 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Slush Fund Update - An FEC Complaint (none / 0)

Matt - for the sake of the historical record, the date on the Flickr set should be 10/23 (today) not 10/24

by fatbear on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 03:19:52 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Slush Fund Update - An FEC Complaint (none / 0)

I would imagine that as we speak, Tammy Sun has a staffer furiously working to create a log of those expenditures.

by global yokel on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 06:03:52 PM EST

Re: Lieberman Slush Fund Update - An FEC Complaint (none / 0)

I think the question is what exactly you can spend petty cash on. If they were spending it to provide, say, housing vouchers for out of state volunteers, 400k could get eaten up pretty easy in 2 weeks.

Does anyone know if that would be allowed? Reading the statute, I think it would be, as long as each voucher was worth less then 100 bucks.

Of course, they would still need to have records of who got each voucher, which they don't seem to have.

by dansomone on Tue Oct 24, 2006 at 10:00:49 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.