Puffing

So, as I said last night, I practiced election law for five years and dealt with a lot of candidates’ campaign contribution disclosure reports. I starting digging through the statutes and rules to determine if what the Cagle Campaign did was wrong. To recap, Larry Peterson in the Savannah Morning News reports on the Cagle activities as follows:

[Brad Alexander] acknowledged that some contribution checks dated the 3lst arrived later.

“I don’t know exactly how many,

28 comments

  1. debbie0040 says:

    We don’t know if they actually have received them. This would not be important had Cagle not made such a huge issue out of ethics and his holier than thou attitude.

    They actually signed and stated they had received the contributions. They lied.

    I think it should be investigated. Who knows what else might rear it’s ugly head in the course of the investigation? We might actually find out that funds were solicited while the Senate was in session and people were told to make out their checks on 3-31?

    If Cagle wants to avoid a complaint then why hasn’t he already made an ammended report? What is he hiding?

  2. nfire says:

    What it looks like to me is that Sen. Cagle raised a ton of cash in a very little amount of time and the Reed folks are looking for something to nitpick about. They’re getting beat all over the state in every category and now they’re looking for something, anything, to hold on to for hope. Not pretty.

  3. buzzbrockway says:

    nfire,

    Sure Reed’s taking a beating in the press but can you point me to one poll that shows Cagle in the lead? I’m not aware of one so how can you honestly say “they’re getting beat all over the state in every category?”

  4. gopdoc says:

    Here is why this is an issue, as is other things disclosed by and about the Cagle campaign this week.

    For months Cagle has been saying character counts, that a person is not what they say and do in public, but what they do in private as well. Cagle has made this campaign about character and ethics by joining the liberal media democrat driven campaign to destroy Reed.

    So now we find out what goes on at the Cagle campaign when no one is looking. The violate state ethics laws. By stealth they change the Reed entry in whatever that on-line encyclopedia thing is. Cagle lies when he says he gave Taylor $1,000 because of extortion and intemidation by Taylor. Both Taylor and Sen. Johnson have denied this.

    Maybe these are “minor” things, but they show a pattern from our “character is king” candidate, who apparently does not have as much integrity as we thought.

    Yes, I am disappointed in politicians and the corners they cut, but I am very disappointed in the Cagle campaign for being two-faced.

    All the people who have been tearing Reed apart because Cagle is so ethical by comparison–I wonder what they say now?

    Shame on the Cagle campaign. While he charges his opponent with being unethical, he is guilty himself. When you live in a glass house, don’t throw rocks at others.

  5. Sandy Brothers says:

    gopdoc, I understand your feeling. No one likes hypocrites. The Cagle campaign has shown what it is really made of this week and it is not a pretty picture.

    When you send out press releases claiming one thing only to learn the truth is something else, or when you do dirty tricks like changing people’s articles in Wikipedia, or cut corners with ethics laws, you send a message to voters that you are above common decency. And when you add to that a year long crusade to paint your opponent as unethical, well it kind of makes you question whether this guy ought to be a Lt. Governor, much less a dog catcher.

    When will politicians get it?

  6. George Allen 08 says:

    I’m a little confused with this entire situation. Why would Cagle count checks he hadn’t received yet? What would they have to gain by doing that? Just to look a little better on the disclosure reports?

    I think this is a minor mistake by the campaign, but it makes Cagle look unethical, which turns it into a major mistake.

  7. Karla Stuckey says:

    This confirms what I have been hearing in DC. One Georgia congressman even speculated that Cagle may be getting ready to make changes in his campaign staff. Joel McElhannon may need to go. There have been too many minor, but costly mistakes the last couple of weeks.

    This has the Reed supporters giddy. Look for more open support to come after Rudy.

  8. Bill Simon says:

    Erick

    There may be a slight problem with your analysis if “receipt” is the law of the land.

    See, there have been many times over the years when checks were either “received” (i.e., delivered to the campaign) or “written” as a result of some fundraising event that happened in the days before the Legislative Session that were not accounted for as being “received” BEFORE the Session started.

    You see where I’m going with this, I’m sure. Those checks were not raised during the Session, but were received by the campaign several days after the fundraising event/letter that have been found to be “legal”/”ethical” contributions. That is, not in violation of the clause in the Ethics Act that prohibits “fundraising during the Sesion.”

    Reading the law is one thing, Erick. Interpreting the intent is another. If the Commission should review this matter and interpret the law to mean “receipt” means physically in-hand and nothing else, then I’m going back in time to file complaints against legislators who have “received” the checks after the Session started.

  9. jay says:

    someone who has worked on campaigns other than a volunteer please comment on this. Campaigns recieve checks from the mail, they recieve them on the final day of the period and a few days after. The campaign then has a week to organize and deposit those checks and then file their disclosure. it seems natural to organize the checks by the date on the checks. of the few campaigns that i have been around, they are staffed by young people and volunteers, not by accountants and ethics law attorneys. to a novice, it seems like this would be a very simple oversight and not an indication of questionable ethics.

  10. Erick says:

    Jay,
    I personally think that campaigns should go by dates on the checks and not by when the checks were actually in hand. But, I cannot find any statements to the contrary from the State Ethics Commission and the law is plainly stated that you must record the “date of receipt.”

  11. MountainThinker says:

    Well, if we’re going to be that legalistic, a check is, by economics standards, an M2 payment, not M1, and as such, it is merely a promise to pay, not ‘as good as cash’. Therefore, technically, it shouldn’t count till the check has actually cleared payment to the account. After all, checks, unlike credit cards and cash, have a possibility of not being ‘good and real’ payment. Having worked on several campaigns, we always based it upon when the check was cut, as that should be considered the intended time of payment. I think this is a tempest in a teapot, and that the Cagle Team made a good faith effort to disclose to the best of their ability. Anyone who says otherwise needs to study finance/business law a little more, or show me the memo showing the intent to mislead/puff-up the campaign disclosure report. Otherwise, stop impeaching a man’s character for being too forthcoming…

  12. debbie0040 says:

    It clearly says receipt. check out the ethics site and their rules. It says receipt of contribution.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=receipt

    re·ceipt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-st)
    n.

    The act of receiving: We are in receipt of your letter.
    The fact of being or having been received: They denied receipt of the shipment.
    A quantity or amount received. Often used in the plural: cash receipts.
    A written acknowledgment that a specified article, sum of money, or shipment of merchandise has been received.
    A recipe.

  13. jay says:

    so then we should insist that each campaign that recieves a bad check will have to ammend their disclosure to reflect that they “were not in reciept of you contribution” during that reporting period. If they run it back through in another reporting period and it shows up, it should then be re-reported in that period.

  14. jackson says:

    Debbie, you are right for once. We should go by the exact letter of the law.

    That being the case, should a complaint be filed against Ralph Reed for amending his report 9 months ago?

    Can’t wait to see what jibberish you came up with now…

    Oh…yeah, and maybe we should throw Sonny Perdue in Jail too. Didnt he get a pretty big ethics fine….Oh, and anyone else that has filed an amended report, file a complaint against them too…Have fun!

  15. Brian from Ellijay says:

    Yall are hilarious. This is common place, the state ethics commission even called it a common mistake. I have been a paid staffer on several campaigns and there are tricks that every campaign employ, such as putting off bills until after the disclosure. Seems an awful lot alike to me. Anyone want to disagree?

    For the most part this is somthing whether intentional or non-intentional (which I believe is the case) this holds no water to the accounting mistakes of Casino Jack, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed. Sorry guys this is a straw, quit grasping.

  16. debbie0040 says:

    Cagle should be allowed to ammend his report, but the problem is he has not done so nor has he said he would. One of his staffers said they would if they are required to. Nothing else has bee said. It looks like a complaint will have to be filed to force him to do so. What is he hiding?

    Cagle did it deliberately to puff up his contributions. He even held a big press conference proclaiming how much he had raised. The law is clear on receipt to avoid this. Cagle lied on his form. The voters should know this and they do.

    The voters should know that Cagle does one thing and says another.

    We have not seen the last of the Taylor Contribution/bribe and how Cagle lied about the threats.

    Reed has not been charged with any crime.

    I told you before that Cagle is not squeaky clean. There is more to come so just stay tuned…

  17. larry smith says:

    Debbie,

    You’ve been flapping your gums about this for days. Are you going to swear out a complaint and put a stamp on it? Do you have the guts to actually DO something, or are you just another talker who won’t stand up and be counted?

    I think you known it’ll get laughed at as the frivolous joke it is, and you won’t do it.

  18. debbie0040 says:

    I have never said I was going to. I know someone that will if Cagle does not ammend his report. I have no problem filing one if they decide not to.

    What is he hiding?

  19. Jack S says:

    I think the problem here is that Ralph is used to running slanderous campaigns that rely on whispers and threats and phone calls but he’s never had anyone fight back.

    Now he’s got a candidate (Cagle) and a team around the state that won’t stand for it. They’re standing up to his bullying and that of his fanatical, looney fringe, dozen supporters aroudn the state.

    The table has turned and they don’t have any idea how to handle someone who stands up and says “To Hell with you, I’m gonna expose you for what you are – a fraud!”

    They’ve never met a group of people who won’t be intimidated by their chest thumping.

    scary, ain’t it. We’re about to see the end of the Reedites.

  20. debbie0040 says:

    Cagle is the fraud. Cox fired her staff that altered Wilkipedia’s Taylor posting. Cagle’s staff member did the same thing and was not fired.
    Cagle lied about the Taylor contribution. Cagle slammed Reed about the 1998 Taylor ad but one of his staff members starred as Taylor in it.
    Cagle lied on his financial disclosure form and puffed up contributions.

    We will see on July 18th who has a dozen supporters around the state.

  21. gopdoc says:

    OK, so this is probably a minor issue, though clearly against current law. The importance of this, however, is not whether a formal complaint is filed or not.

    The importance is that it shows us an inside glimpse into the Cagle campaign.
    Mr. Moral/Character/Integrity is obviously not above skirting the law and cutting corners.

    Seems Mr. Cagle’s campaign is not as clean as it would want us to think it is.

    Hypocrite.

  22. Sandy Brothers says:

    Cagle should do an amendment immediately. The fact that he has not done so reveals his lack of concern about this, or his campaign’s attitude that they are above the law.

    This is similar to what happened with that Wikipedia thing. Cox’s guy get’s fired for doing it to Taylor, but Cagle does not fire his guy for doing the same thing to Reed. How hypocritical can you be?

    The Cagle campaign should not be above the law. It may be a minor infraction, but they should play by the rules. How silly to break the law just to puff up your contribution report. Are they that afraid of Reed’s money advantage?

  23. nfire says:

    Debbie, gopdoc & sandy: Do you have fingers? If so, you are able to file an ethics complaint. Obviously, this is affecting your personal lives.

  24. Former Cagle Guy says:

    Reed

    Not the chief Georgia hypocrite Cagle.

    If you guys don’t get it, then you clearly reveal your own lack of credibility in your attacks on Reed.

    Cagle has to answer for his actions. He has set himself up as this great paragon of virtue. His actions suggest otherwise.

    Hypocrite–hypocrite–hypocirte–hypocrite

    That’s Cagle in a word.

  25. Brian from Ellijay says:

    Reed people on here are annoying, if you read what one posts, the rest are the same. Either they can not think for themselves, have talking points, or are the same person. Sorry none require my response. I am going to talk to who matters, the people.

    It’s time for door to door. Yes I like grassroots. It is what I do best, that includes, but is not limited to signs, door to door, events, building coalitions, building perceptions and base. Sorry to anyone who does not know the value in these. This is what I did for the Governor in 2002, this is what I will do for Senators 3 plus Sonny this time around. Time to make the 575 difference.

Comments are closed.