http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/36596/80721/en/summary.html
.
.
.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (Vote For 1)
95 of 100 Counties Reporting
For 61.05% 1,294,406
Against 38.95% 825,808
.
.
.
NC STATE SENATE DISTRICT 28 - DEM
Bruce Davis (DEM) 28.03% 6,415
Gladys A. Robinson (DEM) 71.97% 16,475
.
.
.
PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE - REP
95 of 100 Counties Reporting
Newt Gingrich (REP) 7.65% 73,380
Ron Paul (REP) 11.06% 106,140
Mitt Romney (REP) 65.68% 630,019
Rick Santorum (REP) 10.41% 99,835
No Preference (REP) 5.20% 49,922
.
.
.
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DISTRICT 6 - REP
10 of 10 Counties Reporting
Bill Flynn (REP) 22.29% 19,624
Billy Yow (REP) 20.41% 17,969
Howard Coble (REP) 57.31% 50,462
.
.
.
NC STATE SENATE DISTRICT 27 - REP
1 of 1 Counties Reporting
Sal Leone (REP) 2.06% 505
Trudy Wade (REP) 53.90% 13,243
Latimer B. Alexander IV (REP) 10.04% 2,466
Justin C. Conrad (REP) 34.01% 8,355
.
.
.
NC HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DISTRICT 59 - REP
1 of 1 Counties Reporting
Jon Hardister (REP) 58.01% 6,726
Sharon Kasica (REP) 30.40% 3,524
Timothy Cook (REP) 11.59% 1,344
Showing posts with label North Carolina Board of Election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North Carolina Board of Election. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Gas Tax for Free and The N.C. Board of Election Lawyer in Never Never Land
Let's start off this post to say that there should never be a time where a candidate for local, state or federal office in a campaign buys gas or any other item just to make a point because to many people this could be considered buying your vote.
We have seen a lot talked about this issue and the local TV station in News 2 do some inquiring with the State Board of Elections for a report that was very interesting to listen to here is that report CLICKHERE.
Then we have the State Board of Elections lawyer Don Wright send me this via email:
________________________________________________________________________________
We have seen a lot talked about this issue and the local TV station in News 2 do some inquiring with the State Board of Elections for a report that was very interesting to listen to here is that report CLICKHERE.
Then we have the State Board of Elections lawyer Don Wright send me this via email:
________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the first of two e-mails. I have added the article about recent cases about the need for quid pro quo.
See out below
Don Wright
The Supreme Court Eviscerates the "Honest Services" Statute
Courts have long interpreted the mail fraud and wire fraud statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341-1351) as criminalizing not only schemes to defraud victims of money and property, but also schemes to defraud victims of intangible rights such as "honest services."
The statute, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1346, provided that a "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a "scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services." Critics of § 1346 suggest that honest services fraud is a made-up crime with no real foundation. Courts, however, have found violations when there has been a breach of duty of loyalty, an intent to deceive, and conflicts of interest while taking official action that furthers that undisclosed interest, or when there has been undisclosed self-dealing, as well as when someone has received a bribe or kickback from a third party as a quid pro quo for some advantage from the employer.
Last term, the Supreme Court heard three cases concerning the honest services fraud statute: Black v. United States, Weyhrauch v. United States, and Skilling v. United States. On June 24, 2010, as anticipated, the Court sharply limited the scope of § 1346, invalidating the use of the statute except in cases involving bribery and kickbacks. Skilling v. United States, 561 U. S. __ (2010).
The ruling is a devastating blow that deprives prosecutors of an important tool in their efforts to fight public corruption and a disaster for good political governance. Prosecutors have long used § 1346 to target public officials who engage in malfeasance without evidence of a quid pro quo - the direct exchange of an official act for something of value. Honest services fraud typically has been charged when politicians have been offered a stream of value: i.e. meals, tickets and trips in exchange for a series of acts, but prosecutors are unable to tie any specific gift to a specific official act.
Despite the Court's assertion that the core of the honest services statute remains intact, a rash of prior convictions likely will be vacated and in the future, corrupt officials will have an easier time escaping accountability for their misdeeds. If Congress fails to rectify this disastrous decision, a broad range of public corruption will be largely immune from federal prosecution.
The Supreme Court stated specifically that if Congress wants to allow honest services fraud to be used in cases beyond those involving bribes and kickbacks, it needs to specify exactly what conduct is prohibited.
-----Original Message-----
From: Melvin, Lauren [mailto:lmelvin@wfmy.gannett.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:08 PM
To: Bartlett, Gary
Cc: Wright, Don; McLean, Johnnie
Subject: Re: Question regarding Trudy Wade for Senate event
From: Melvin, Lauren [mailto:lmelvin@wfmy.gannett.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:08 PM
To: Bartlett, Gary
Cc: Wright, Don; McLean, Johnnie
Subject: Re: Question regarding Trudy Wade for Senate event
Ok, thank you.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 18, 2012, at 12:04 PM, "Bartlett, Gary" ncsbe.gov<mailto:Gary.Bartlett@ncsbe.gov>> wrote:
Not a violation using signs, shirts and caps. This is a freedom of speech issue protected by the Bill of Rights. There was no quid-quo-pro in offering something of value in turn for their vote. It was open to the first 100 people regardless of age, citizenship, voting status or party.
From: Melvin, Lauren [mailto:lmelvin@wfmy.gannett.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:40 PM
To: Bartlett, Gary
Subject: Question regarding Trudy Wade for Senate event
Dear Mr. Bartlett,
Regarding the “Trudy Wade for Senate” campaign event in Whitsett this past Saturday…I know you advised Ms. Wade that her discounted gas event was lawful, but also offered this warning:
"Please note that if you or your campaign verbalizes or acts in a manner that could be reasonably construed as requesting a person's vote in conjunction with the event, those facts could put you or your campaign in violation of the law."
Our television station did attend this event, where Ms. Wade and all of her volunteers were wearing “Trudy Wade for Senate” shirts. There were also “Trudy Wade for Senate” signs displayed at the event.
You can find our story here:
<http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=224992>http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=224992
Additionally, a viewer brought this to my attention as well.
Please explain -- how is this different from soliciting votes?
Thanks,
Lauren Melvin
Lauren Melvin
WFMY News 2
__________________________________________________________________________________
Then we see from the News 2 report where the Chairman of the State Board of Election Gary Bartlett chimed in on the issue of State Senate candidate Dr. Trudy Wade's workers who were wearing t shirts and signs promoting Trudy Wade for Senate all over the publicity stunt.
Here's what State Board of Elections Executive Director Gary Bartlett said:
"Not a violation using signs, shirts and caps. This is a freedom of speech issue protected by the Bill of Rights. There was no quid-quo-pro in offering something of value in turn for their vote. It was open to the first 100 people regardless of age, citizenship, voting status or party."
Hence, there was no violation
Getting this type of ruling opens up the Pandora's box for any candidate all over the state to do whatever they want to do as long as you do not say "VOTE FOR " which will be considered a quid pro quo but let's give you another issue that can happen which will be legal even in this senate race.
One of the other candidates is Justin Conrad who's family owns the Libby Hill Seafood Restaurants all over the triad and they have some restaurants in the area where he is campaigning for the senate seat. Now under the direction of our Board of Election it would be illegal for Justin Conrad to say vote for me and i will give you a free meal at Libby Hill. But let's give you a scenario that would be acceptable to the State Board of Election. Let's say that the election will be next Tuesday and Justin Conrad has well over $10,000 in his campaign coffers it would be legal under what the state is saying for Justin Conrad to have signs in front of Libby Hill to say Justin Conrad for Senate along with all his waiters and waitresses to have t shirts on as well and when the patrons of Libby Hill come up to the counter to pay they could let the people know that Justin Conrad paid for your meal and that would be legal under that State Board of Elections. How absurd.
Let's take it to the worse case scenario on this issue where you could feasibly sit outside a polling booth and hand out $10 bills to people walking by and just say Justin Conrad wants to say have a blessed day and this would be legal under the direction of the BOZOS from the State Board of Elections.
The State Board of Election along with their lead Attorney Don Wright are dead wrong on this issue and if they proceed with similar rulings it will open up a whole new can of worms and the State Legislature needs to tighten up these laws to never have a situation before a election where a candidate is paying for people's gas during campaign season or any season for that matter.
"Not a violation using signs, shirts and caps. This is a freedom of speech issue protected by the Bill of Rights. There was no quid-quo-pro in offering something of value in turn for their vote. It was open to the first 100 people regardless of age, citizenship, voting status or party."
Hence, there was no violation
Getting this type of ruling opens up the Pandora's box for any candidate all over the state to do whatever they want to do as long as you do not say "VOTE FOR " which will be considered a quid pro quo but let's give you another issue that can happen which will be legal even in this senate race.
One of the other candidates is Justin Conrad who's family owns the Libby Hill Seafood Restaurants all over the triad and they have some restaurants in the area where he is campaigning for the senate seat. Now under the direction of our Board of Election it would be illegal for Justin Conrad to say vote for me and i will give you a free meal at Libby Hill. But let's give you a scenario that would be acceptable to the State Board of Election. Let's say that the election will be next Tuesday and Justin Conrad has well over $10,000 in his campaign coffers it would be legal under what the state is saying for Justin Conrad to have signs in front of Libby Hill to say Justin Conrad for Senate along with all his waiters and waitresses to have t shirts on as well and when the patrons of Libby Hill come up to the counter to pay they could let the people know that Justin Conrad paid for your meal and that would be legal under that State Board of Elections. How absurd.
Let's take it to the worse case scenario on this issue where you could feasibly sit outside a polling booth and hand out $10 bills to people walking by and just say Justin Conrad wants to say have a blessed day and this would be legal under the direction of the BOZOS from the State Board of Elections.
The State Board of Election along with their lead Attorney Don Wright are dead wrong on this issue and if they proceed with similar rulings it will open up a whole new can of worms and the State Legislature needs to tighten up these laws to never have a situation before a election where a candidate is paying for people's gas during campaign season or any season for that matter.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Congressman Brad Miller TIme To Get out of Guilford County
HT: Antics Road Show CLICKHERE
Please see the post by jon on this issue above. Redistricting is going to come and go as quickly as we can say go and it is very important for all involved to know how we feel. In the post at antics road show it shows the map of Congressman Brad Miller's district which goes from raleigh all the way dipping down into guilford county as well.
Here is a quote from the post
"The 13th district as drawn is an outrage and an afront to the citizens of Guilford County, that will hopefully be corrected by the current legislature."
Well said and agree 100%. It is time for Congressman Brad Miller to get out of Guilford County .
Please see the post by jon on this issue above. Redistricting is going to come and go as quickly as we can say go and it is very important for all involved to know how we feel. In the post at antics road show it shows the map of Congressman Brad Miller's district which goes from raleigh all the way dipping down into guilford county as well.
Here is a quote from the post
"The 13th district as drawn is an outrage and an afront to the citizens of Guilford County, that will hopefully be corrected by the current legislature."
Well said and agree 100%. It is time for Congressman Brad Miller to get out of Guilford County .
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Guilford County Voters: Next Time, Please Do Your Homework - A Repost For All To Remember
This is a repost from a few years ago that needs to be reiterated to plenty of voters in Guilford County. If you don't know the candidate, or haven't done the research to find out about the candidate, then your best bet is to not vote for them or the position. Because this is what happens below. This was not a shining monent for voters in Guilford County.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Scott Yost from the Rhino Times reports more on the interesting saga of the Guilford County Soil and Water Supervisor with a fake name, CLICKHERE or click on the title above.
Here is the first paragraph from this post by Scott Yost,"The man who ran in and won the Guilford County Soil and Water Conservation District supervisor race in the November 2008 election did so under a fake name: "Kirk Perkins," the winning candidate, is actually a transient whose real name is Kirk Newell."
There was an earlier post on Triadwatch on this issue: CLICKHERE
Does anyone see how this makes Guilford County voters look? As a voter, to know that just doing a little research could have prevented this from happening, or if you just took my advice back on October 29, 2008 on Triadwatch CLICKHERE with the title named "Found A Soil and Water Candidate to Vote for in Guilford County" , this could have been averted.
Let's try a new tactic in any upcoming election. If you don't know who to vote for, please don't vote in that race at all, or you might just end up with this as your representative on any board or commission.
If information comes in on how to let the state board know that Andrew Courts needs to be appointed to the commission, it will be updated.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Scott Yost from the Rhino Times reports more on the interesting saga of the Guilford County Soil and Water Supervisor with a fake name, CLICKHERE or click on the title above.
Here is the first paragraph from this post by Scott Yost,"The man who ran in and won the Guilford County Soil and Water Conservation District supervisor race in the November 2008 election did so under a fake name: "Kirk Perkins," the winning candidate, is actually a transient whose real name is Kirk Newell."
There was an earlier post on Triadwatch on this issue: CLICKHERE
Does anyone see how this makes Guilford County voters look? As a voter, to know that just doing a little research could have prevented this from happening, or if you just took my advice back on October 29, 2008 on Triadwatch CLICKHERE with the title named "Found A Soil and Water Candidate to Vote for in Guilford County" , this could have been averted.
Let's try a new tactic in any upcoming election. If you don't know who to vote for, please don't vote in that race at all, or you might just end up with this as your representative on any board or commission.
If information comes in on how to let the state board know that Andrew Courts needs to be appointed to the commission, it will be updated.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Very Disappointing Campaign Returns for N.C. Senate Candidate Trudy Wade, Take a Look!
Trudy Wade Campaign Report Second Quarter 2010
North Carolina Senate Candidate for District 28 Dr. Trudy Wade has turned in her second quarter campaign reports for 2010. Let me start out by saying that everything in this post is legal for what the Trudy Wade Campaign has turned into the State Board of Elections BUT to the candidate who should believe in transparency in local government you can see that below the fold aggregated contributions from individuals a total of 140 who gave $50 in cash, plus 8 who gave $50 check plus a few $25 and $30 as well which is around 25% of all her campaign contributions where you will not see who gave to her campaign.. Here is what North Carolina law states in:
163-278.11
a1) Threshold for Reporting Identity of Contributor. – A treasurer shall not be required to report the name, address, or principal occupation of any individual who contributes fifty dollars ($50.00) or less to the treasurer's committee during an election as defined in G.S. 163‑278.13. The State Board of Elections shall provide on its reporting forms for the reporting of contributions below that threshold. On those reporting forms, the State Board may require date and amount of contributions below the threshold, but may treat differently for reporting purposes contributions below the threshold that are made in different modes and in different settings.
then we have this North Carolina General Statute
§ 163‑278.14. No contributions in names of others; no anonymous contributions; contributions in excess of fifty dollars; no contribution without specific designation of contributor.
(a) No individual, political committee, or other entity shall make any contribution anonymously or in the name of another. No candidate, political committee, referendum committee, political party, or treasurer shall knowingly accept any contribution made by any individual or person in the name of another individual or person or made anonymously. If a candidate, political committee, referendum committee, political party, or treasurer receives anonymous contributions or contributions determined to have been made in the name of another, he shall pay the money over to the Board, by check, and all such moneys received by the Board shall be deposited in the Civil Penalty and Forfeiture Fund of the State of North Carolina.
(b) No entity shall make, and no candidate, committee or treasurer shall accept, any monetary contribution in excess of fifty dollars ($50.00) unless such contribution is in the form of a check, draft, money order, credit card charge, debit, or other noncash method that can be subject to written verification. No contribution in the form of check, draft, money order, credit card charge, debits, or other noncash method may be made or accepted unless it contains a specific designation of the intended contributee chosen by the contributor. The State Board of Elections may prescribe guidelines as to the reporting and verification of any method of contribution payment allowed under this Article. For contributions by money order, the State Board shall prescribe methods to ensure an audit trail for every contribution so that the identity of the contributor can be determined. For a contribution made by credit card, the credit card account number of a contributor is not a public record.
(c) No political committee or referendum committee shall make any contribution unless in doing so it reports to the recipient the contributor's name as required in G.S 163‑278.7(b)(1). (1973, c. 1272, s. 1; 1979, c. 1073, s. 19; 1987, c. 113, s. 2; 1999‑453, s. 4(a); 2001‑319, s. 10(a); 2002‑159, s. 55(k); 2004‑125, s. 5(b); 2005‑430, s. 1; 2006‑195, ss. 1, 5.2; 2007‑484, s. 23.)
We have seen where other North Carolina Senators like Don Vaughan from Greensboro who has turned in his second quarter campaign returns for 2010 CLICKHERE , which shows $0 aggregated contributions from individuals because he gets all the information from all of his contributors for all to see. This is called transparency in local government .Senator Don Vaughan has spoken out on this issue on 8-2-2010 at his senate facebook group where he said this ,
"Transparency, honesty and integrity are the cornerstone of my campaign and public service. I was the only Guilford County legislator to receive the "Sunshine Award" for excellence in campaign reporting. I believe we should continue to strengthen reporting requirements, such as doing away with the $1000 threshold and ...reporting all contributions no matter what the amount."
As you can see from his returns he does get the sunshine award and hopefully when Dr. Trudy Wade gets elected to the North Carolina Senate she will be the first senator to sign onto a bill co signed by another Guilford County Senator in Don Vaughan on reporting of all campaign contributions to everyone's campaign because as we have seen above and also with the below the fold look at Dr. Wades campaign returns it sure does not look good to see all of those aggregated contributions going to the complete edge of reporting of $50 with no reports in her returns. Time to shine some Sunlight on the Trudy Wade Campaign, let's see if her next returns will have the aggregated contributions under $50 with the names of her contributors because she has another campaign rally coming up in September.
UPDATE:
FEC over at Vie de Malchance CLICKHERE had this to say in a post "Unfortunately, more and more political info is showing up online and we really can’t concentrate on it all. Right now, there’s a campaign finance report for Trudy Wade at the NCBOE with a whole bunch of $50 anonymous donations, reminiscent of Jim Black. The problem is there are too many pols to be watched and only so many of us."
__________________________________________________________________________________
04/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Check $50.00
04/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Check $50.00
04/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Check $50.00
04/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $20.00
04/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Check $50.00
05/11/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Check $25.00
05/11/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Check $35.00
06/04/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $20.00
06/21/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Check $50.00
06/21/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Check $50.00
06/21/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $20.00
06/22/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/22/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/22/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/22/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/23/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/23/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/23/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/23/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/24/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/25/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/25/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/25/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/25/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/25/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/28/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/28/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/28/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/28/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/28/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/28/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/28/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/28/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/28/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Check $50.00
06/28/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Check $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Check $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Cash $50.00
06/29/2010 Aggregated Individual Contribution
Individual Contribution 71951 Check $20.00
Monday, July 19, 2010
Jeff Hyde Campaign and the Mysterious Raffle Winner, Who is The Winner?
jeff hyde committee 2010 campaign report second quarter
The Jeff Hyde Committee held a reverse raffle at the Conservatives for Guilford County summer picnic here is what the committee had to say about this raffle on their application for the raffle.
The Jeff Hyde Committee is holding a Conservative Victory Raffle, now through June 25th. Only 300 tickets have been printed. Enter our raffle for a chance to win $5000.00 and you would be helping elect local Conservatives to State and County offices. Your Contribution will go along way in the efforts to use Conservative Principles to tackle the Problems that face our State and threaten our prospersity. Jobs, Deficit spending and taxes, and Education. Buy a Conservative Victory Raffle ticket for $100.00 and reserve your chance to win Five Thousand Dollars on Friday, June 25 at the Take Back America Picnic. The Picnic will be held at Bur Mil Park and the winner will be annoucned at the end of the evening. You do not need to be present to win. Proceeds for the raffle will be used to purchase media ads on local TV, Radio and Print media.
Even before this raffle ever took place there was some of us on facebook who were questioning what and how he was going to handle this raffle at a Conservatives for Guilford County (C4GC) picnic. We had questioned how will you he handling the money and if they are going to make checks payable to your committee, which the Jeff Hyde Committee added to be in compliance with state law.
After this Take Back America Picnic and after last week's reporting of second quarter campaign contributions it was clear that something was missing in the returns. People had wanted to know who had won the raffle and if we can take what was reported at Guarino's blog by commentator Jon Firebaugh here is the comment
"I think the winner was a Becky Smith from Gastonia. It was the last item on the agenda. Jeff Hyde should know."
Triadwatch did get in touch with Jeff Hyde and here is what he had to say,
"Thanks for your concern. I did heed your advice and since I am a novice at running for office I called the State Board of Elections to discuss the raffle before hand and the prize after wards. I spoke with Adam (? can't recall his last name and don't have it handy) We executed the raffle according to finance laws.
The winning raffle ticket was drawn by Pam Furr of Rush Radio and announced at the C4gc. The winner was not present. When contacted the winner said she did not want the money. I contacted Adam again on Monday. and explained. I asked if their was any special form to fill out. Answer no. If their is no disbursement then no form. He also said "congratulations!" The winner #0067 does not want to be acknowledged and I am trying to respect her privacy. "
If the winner doesn't want to be identified then where is he or she in campaign returns that are in a scribd version above? When it comes to campaign donations there are state laws that also states that the maximum amnount a single person can give a candidate is $4,000 and if you did get this raffle back as a campaign gift then there should be a disbursement back to this person for $1,100 to get to the maximum of $4,000. You could get the whole $5,000 if this mystery person is a family member who won the raffle prize. Was the winner Becky Smith? and if so is she a family member?
Jeff Hyde states that he did get in touch with the State Board of Elections but there must have been some confusion on what transpired because in any case when it involves campaign contributions you will have to identify the disbursement of the raffle or if this person was giving the money back to the campaign then it also needs to be reported.It is not reported anywhere on the Jeff Hyde Committee campaign contributions. We will see what transpires and if this mystery raffle winner will need to be reported on the committee's campaign forms.
The Jeff Hyde Committee held a reverse raffle at the Conservatives for Guilford County summer picnic here is what the committee had to say about this raffle on their application for the raffle.
The Jeff Hyde Committee is holding a Conservative Victory Raffle, now through June 25th. Only 300 tickets have been printed. Enter our raffle for a chance to win $5000.00 and you would be helping elect local Conservatives to State and County offices. Your Contribution will go along way in the efforts to use Conservative Principles to tackle the Problems that face our State and threaten our prospersity. Jobs, Deficit spending and taxes, and Education. Buy a Conservative Victory Raffle ticket for $100.00 and reserve your chance to win Five Thousand Dollars on Friday, June 25 at the Take Back America Picnic. The Picnic will be held at Bur Mil Park and the winner will be annoucned at the end of the evening. You do not need to be present to win. Proceeds for the raffle will be used to purchase media ads on local TV, Radio and Print media.
Even before this raffle ever took place there was some of us on facebook who were questioning what and how he was going to handle this raffle at a Conservatives for Guilford County (C4GC) picnic. We had questioned how will you he handling the money and if they are going to make checks payable to your committee, which the Jeff Hyde Committee added to be in compliance with state law.
After this Take Back America Picnic and after last week's reporting of second quarter campaign contributions it was clear that something was missing in the returns. People had wanted to know who had won the raffle and if we can take what was reported at Guarino's blog by commentator Jon Firebaugh here is the comment
"I think the winner was a Becky Smith from Gastonia. It was the last item on the agenda. Jeff Hyde should know."
Triadwatch did get in touch with Jeff Hyde and here is what he had to say,
"Thanks for your concern. I did heed your advice and since I am a novice at running for office I called the State Board of Elections to discuss the raffle before hand and the prize after wards. I spoke with Adam (? can't recall his last name and don't have it handy) We executed the raffle according to finance laws.
The winning raffle ticket was drawn by Pam Furr of Rush Radio and announced at the C4gc. The winner was not present. When contacted the winner said she did not want the money. I contacted Adam again on Monday. and explained. I asked if their was any special form to fill out. Answer no. If their is no disbursement then no form. He also said "congratulations!" The winner #0067 does not want to be acknowledged and I am trying to respect her privacy. "
If the winner doesn't want to be identified then where is he or she in campaign returns that are in a scribd version above? When it comes to campaign donations there are state laws that also states that the maximum amnount a single person can give a candidate is $4,000 and if you did get this raffle back as a campaign gift then there should be a disbursement back to this person for $1,100 to get to the maximum of $4,000. You could get the whole $5,000 if this mystery person is a family member who won the raffle prize. Was the winner Becky Smith? and if so is she a family member?
Jeff Hyde states that he did get in touch with the State Board of Elections but there must have been some confusion on what transpired because in any case when it involves campaign contributions you will have to identify the disbursement of the raffle or if this person was giving the money back to the campaign then it also needs to be reported.It is not reported anywhere on the Jeff Hyde Committee campaign contributions. We will see what transpires and if this mystery raffle winner will need to be reported on the committee's campaign forms.
Monday, July 12, 2010
State Wide Campaign Reports are Due Today Triadwatch is Looking Forward to Making Sure EVERYONE Complies with State Law in Guilford County
July 12, 2010 2010 Second Quarter Report
• Required from all registered committees actively participating
in 2010 elections
• Covers from last report thru June 30
July 30, 2010 2010 Mid Year Semi-Annual Report
• Required from all registered committees NOT actively
participating in the 2010 elections
• Covers from last report thru June 30
Friday, July 9, 2010
Part #3 on Obstruction of Justice at the North Carolina Board of Elections It is Time for Heads To Roll
HAT TIP:Jeffrey Sykes
Part #3 with more video embedded above on the North Carolina Board of Elections and all of these campaign flights with Richard Moore who was a candidate for governor is challenging the reports made by the North Carolina Board of Elections and that he did follow the law. The report above is from ABC 11 CLICKHERE and if you would like to see the other parts of this issue here are the links below
PART #1 CLICKHERE
PART #2 CLICKHERE
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Obstruction of Justice at the North Carolina Board of Elections , Time for A Complete Overhaul
Above video is from politics.mync.com CLICKHERE
Below is a scathing e mail sent out by the North Carolina Republican Party Chairman Tom Fetzer with permission to repost . It is time to shine a lot of light on the North Carolina Board of Elections(NCBOE) and the need to reform the whole department from training to ethics on the state and local level. Triadwatch has highlighted in the past few years plenty of problems with the NCBOE and as you will see below that Tom Fetzer has plenty to say as well. The post is a little lengthy but well worth the read, enjoy.
_________________________________________________________________________________
This morning, I held a press conference at NCGOP Headquarters in Raleigh to discuss the State Board of Elections' report on the Bev Perdue Committee. I felt it important to share my comments from the press conference with you, and the two major conclusions we came to while reading the BOE report. While this makes for a lengthy email, I hope you will take the time to read my comments below and realize the level of corruption that Governor Perdue is presiding over. The people of North Carolina deserve better.
Sincerely,
Tom Fetzer
NCGOP Chairman
_________________________________________________________________________________
The following is a condensed timeline created by NCGOP staff from Exhibit 1 of the SBOE report on gubernatorial candidates released June 25. This version focuses on the Perdue Campaign Committee. It is not intended to be a verbatim recreation of the SBOE timeline. It includes excerpts from the BOE timeline, but also includes content that is wholly the work of the NCGOP, not the SBOE. However, it is accurate in its description of events included in the SBOE timeline.
Bev Perdue and the Perdue Campaign lied about reasons for non-disclosure of flights. On October 15, the NCGOP conducted a press conference outlining our suspicions that, like Mr. Easley, Gov. Perdue and her campaign had utilized private and corporate aircraft in violation of NC law by not disclosing properly or reimbursing properly the flights.
Subsequently, on two different dates, the Perdue campaign acknowledged a total of 41 flights it had failed to disclose. According to the Governor and her campaign staff, this long pattern of non compliance and non disclosure was the result of “computer software glitch.”
We now know this was a lie.
On page 6 of the Board of Elections report on campaign flights, there begins a lengthy discussion of $28,000 in corporate flights paid for by New Bern lawyer and good friend of the Governor, Buzzy Stubbs. This discussion consumes many paragraphs and several pages of the report.
NOTE; Here is a link to the report from the News and Observer on campaign flights CLICKHERE
John Wallace, the Perdue committee’s lawyer, who performed a similar function for Mike Easley, and therefore should have plenty of experience in these matters, initially explained “that flights were not disclosed and/or properly paid because the campaign was unaware that Mr. Stubbs was paying for flights.”
But according to what Mr. Stubbs told Kim Strach and Chairman Leake, he had on many occasions told the campaign that he was paying for the flights and inquired about how his payments for the flights had been handled, because he was aware that he had already given the maximum amount allowed by law to the Perdue campaign. Mr. Stubbs specifically identified Peter Reichard and John Wallace as individuals with whom he had discussed his concern about proper accounting for his payments. Mr. Stubbs stated that he had been told of a variety of ways the travel payments could be handled and he often was not comfortable with the information he was being provided.
Finally, on October 23, 2008, Mr. Stubbs sent a letter to the Perdue committee with copies to Wallace and Reichard.
In the letter, Mr. Stubbs states that he has personally reimbursed his law firm in the amount of $28,498.04 for “payment in kind in the form of airplane transportation for Bev Perdue.” He included a copy of his personal check to the law firm in that amount.
Despite this very tangible evidence from a donor of over $28,000 in flights, Gov. Perdue and her campaign failed to disclose the flights as required by law in their 48 hour reports. Nor did they disclose these flights in their 2008 year end report, filed over three months after they received Mr. Stubbs letter on October 23.
No, Gov. Perdue and her committee didn’t acknowledge the flights at all until their 2009 mid-year semi-annual report in July 2009. And only after the Easley investigation indicated to them they had better get busy.
It is pretty clear that, were it not for the ramifications of the Easley hearings, Gov. Perdue and her campaign would never have disclosed or paid for the flights. Keep in mind that the Stubbs flights represent only half of the flights that were ultimately disclosed.
In addition to the bogus excuse about the mysterious “computer software glitch” and Mr. Wallace laughably disingenuous claim that the campaign was unaware that Mr. Stubbs was paying for the flights, the Perdue committee has offered various other explanations as to why the flights were not disclosed.
My personal favorite, expressed by Mr. Reichard was that “the campaign had no process in place to track and disclose information regarding flights.” Not only does this fly in the face of Mr. Stubbs many conversations with Reichard and Wallace, it also does not align with documentation provided by the Perdue committee.
A quote from the report on page 5: “based on the documentation…completed.”
What we have here is the Gov. Perdue campaign first knowingly and willfully failing to disclose contributions as required by law, and then engaging in lies in an attempt to cover up.
Now might be an appropriate time to remind you of some public utterances from our Governor while all this was going on.
“In the 21st century we must conduct the business of government in ways that bring transparency and accountability to the people... I have set high expectations for myself and for everyone who works for North Carolina. We will be open, ethical, and put the public's interest first.” March 9, 2009 State of the State Speech
“I’m the Governor who has thrown open the windows of the state government. I believe in hanging it out there to share. I don’t try to hide anything.” December 14, 2009
"I am really sick of all this, I've been very, very driven by the need for transparency and ethics in government.... I myself did an audit of my campaign. I paid people money to audit my campaign. I want to be sure every “i” is dotted and every “t” is crossed. I’ve been doing that relentlessly for a year." February 18, 2010
"I'm the governor for 15 months who's done anything possible to throw open the windows of state government, to have full transparency, to focus on ethics and how people set government straight," April 20, 2010
That brings me to the 2nd revelation and major conclusion.
That Gary Bartlett, Chairman Leake, and John Wallace colluded in an attempt to derail, distract, and obstruct the investigation by SBOE into the financial irregularities and illegalities of the Perdue for Gov. Campaign.
I now refer to the timeline that is an addendum to the SBOE report.
It documents that we first filed a complaint on October 15, 2009, asking the SBOE to investigate the Perdue Committee.
According to the timeline developed by SBOE staff, there is no mention of taking any action on the complaint until almost 3 months later, on January 12.
It is not until March 23, according to the timeline, before Bartlett authorizes Kim Strach to interview the first witness that same day, after waiting over 5 months to begin the investigation. Bartlett tells Strach that the board wants a resolution to the matter quickly so the interview needs to be wrapped up quickly.
By contrast, again according to the timeline, Mr. Bartlett received a letter from NC Democrat party Executive Director Andrew Whalen on February 15 requesting all correspondence between candidates Smith and Graham and SBOE office and any rules on advisory opinions on the subject.
The next day, Feb 16, Bartlett advises Strach to draft a letter for Whalen and compile all responsive documents. The letter is completed and the documents collected that same day.
The next day, two days after Whalen’s request, Bartlett directs Strach to hand-deliver letter and documents to Andrew Whalen at NCDP headquarters. It is delivered that day.
That same day, and only because I asked for a meeting with Bartlett, I received a one paragraph letter acknowledging an investigation of the Perdue campaign is underway, four months after we filed a complaint.
Later, on Feb 23, Whalen filed a complaint regarding Republican candidates. Bartlett and Strach meet the same day to discuss. It took three months before our complaint was even discussed at the SBOE.
As weeks go by, on repeated occasions, Chairman Leake and Mr. Bartlett direct Strach not to personally follow-up with campaign staff, but to restrict her contact to letter drafted by Mr. Bartlett.
Then, unbelievably, as detailed in several places in the timeline, Strach is told by both Bartlett and Leake that John Wallace and Zach Ambrose, Perdue COS as Lt. Governor, her campaign manager for Gov, and her COS as Governor, will determine who Strach will be allowed to interview.
It is unheard of for a law enforcement agency to allow attorneys with clients under investigation, or as in Mr. Ambrose’s case, targets of the investigation, to determine which witnesses will be allowed to testify. This is collusion and obstruction of justice.
Leake takes over the investigation on or about April 1, when Strach becomes aware of a notebook in John Wallace’s possession that has detailed information regarding flights that Perdue took.
Strach makes repeated attempts to obtain the notebook from Wallace. As before, with flight information at his disposal (see page 4 of the report, first two paragraphs) Wallace delays, and finally offers the assertion that the notebook is protected by “attorney-client privilege.”
Weeks go by and Strach has still not been granted access to the notebook and Bartlett is aware of this.
Then on April 27, Strach advises Bartlett that she will be in Wilmington the following day to deliver the Rusty Carter report to the New Hanover Assistant DA, Tom Old.
April 28 – Bartlett sends two SBOE staffers (McClean, Wright) who have had no involvement in the investigation henceforth to interview Wallace while Strach is out of town.
Strach finds out about this while she is in Wilmington and contacts Bartlett to make sure he tells McClean and Wright to copy the entire contents of the notebook. Bartlett tells Strach that Wallace will not allow that.
With the discovery of the notebook, Leake inserts himself into the investigation, apparently in collusion with John Wallace. Leake begins to schedule interviews, some of which Strach is excluded from. He and Bartlett prevent her from interview Wallace and Ambrose. Leake sits in on interviews with Strach and in some instances limited the length and breadth of the interviews.
This is highly inappropriate behavior and fraught with conflict. This is like a judge sitting in on witness depositions in a case he will be called on to judge impartially.
It is apparent that Bartlett, Leake and Wallace, acted, often consulting with each other on several occasions, to derail the investigation away from issues and witnesses they considered dangerous to Gov. Perdue and her committee.
And Mr. Bartletts’ conclusion in his memo the Board that there is no evidence that there is no intent of wrongdoing is an embarrassment to the people of North Carolina.
Accordingly, we call today for Executive Director Bartlett and Chairman Leake to resign their positions immediately. It would be the first honorable thing they’ve done in this matter. Failing that, Gov. Perdue should remove Chairman Leake, appoint a replacement, and ask the Board to immediately begin a search for a new Executive Director.
Because any of this is unlikely to happen, by letter today, we are asking Wake County District Attorney to launch an investigation into obstruction of justice at the NC BOE, particularly the actions of Mr. Bartlett and Chairman Leake.
Furthermore, we intend to press forward with our public records request. We want all documents, correspondence, email, records of phone conversations and drafts of reports leading up to the one released on Friday. We specifically want to see if Mr. Bartlett or Chairman Leake edited the request and the timeline submitted by the Kim Strach before releasing it on Friday. We will press on until the people of North Carolina get the answers they deserve.
NOTE;Here is a link from the News and Observer to the lame letter sent by Gary Bartlett from NCBOE on the whole campaign flights and the staff report CLICKHERE
Here is a few links to articles on this issue
"Election Board report on air travel made public", CLICKHERE
"Bartlett: No intent of wrongdoing in campaigns for governor" CLICKHERE
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Mayor of Greensboro Bill Knight's Campaign Reports are Here and Needs Help with the UNKNOWN
Knight Bill
The new Mayor of Greensboro Bill Knight has turned in his end of the year 2009 campaign contribution forms to the Guilford County Board of Elections with many discrepencies that are simple to get but way too many local politicians think it is ok to not put these items on their forms.
Let's take a look at what our campaign laws of this state have to say.
163‑278.11. Contents of treasurer's statement of receipts and expenditures.
(a) Statements filed pursuant to provisions of this Article shall set forth the following:
(1) Contributions. – Except as provided in subsection (a1) of this section, a list of all contributions received by or on behalf of a candidate, political committee, or referendum committee. The statement shall list the name and complete mailing address of each contributor, the amount contributed, the principal occupation of the contributor, and the date such contribution was received. The total sum of all contributions to date shall be plainly exhibited. Forms for required reports shall be prescribed by the Board. As used in this section, "principal occupation of the contributor" means the contributor's:
a. Job title or profession; and
b. Employer's name or employer's specific field of business activity.
As you can see from the above North Carolina law your campaign forms need to provide this information of job title and profession. From the above scribd document of the mayor's campaign forms he had a total of 29 different campaign contributors and 21 of them are by their treasurer Beth Hemphill labeled "Unknown" which is around a 72% of the forms are not complete and should be amended.
How hard it is to get in touch with these people to find out this information let's take a closer look at some of the unknowns on this list. Google is a great source along with the white pages online to find this information out.
Here is some phone numbers to guide you to the promised land of providing this information to treasurer Beth Hemphill
Jimmy Shoffner 288-2727
Orton Jones 288-8898
Reginald Sipe 273-9312
Michael Nash 370-4144 and if this is the lawyer here is his web site for occupation CLICKHERE, he is even unknown on his address as well
James McNairy III 378-1564 , here is a link to his profession CLICKHERE
Walter Underwood 292-4685
George Brumback 288-8702, the same one on the local bond commission
Jeff Tillman 851-2194, with his own blog runsmart2win CLICKHERE
Anne Callicott (self employed/homemaker), (Zip code: 27408) $200 to SHARP PENCIL PAC on 05/24/05, what is Sharp Pencil PAC? That is Howard Coble's affiliated PAC CLICKHERE
It isn't that hard to get this information and this is just the first posting of campaign forms that will get a second look from this blog and hopefully others as well. We can also note from this end of the year returns there was plenty of contributions that went up to the limit on giving before you have to divulge any information to the board of election with on the scribd document you can see that 22 out of 24 gave the maximum of $50 to his campaign without reporting your vital information.
Maybe in the future it will be that any person who even gives a sum of $1 or more will need to show all their information to the campaign reports not just over $50. We also have a new law where the threshold to report has went from $3,000 down to $1,000 on all campaigns in North Carolina . So this means plenty of more candidates will have to file reports in a timely manner.
Let's see how many other local candidates campaign reports look like and if anyone else like Guilford County Commissioner Kirk Perkins will get a Gold Star for reporting CLICKHERE
or will they be like the mayors reports that you see above which wouldn't even get a Star. The mayor is also Howard Coble's treasurer and is a accountant as well. This is the reporting he does on his own campaign, wow.
More at the Greensboro News and Record with a report at inside scoop titled "It Pays To Be Mayor" CLICKHERE
Roch 101 with a post CLICKHERE
Saturday, November 21, 2009
N.C. Minority Leader Phil Berger Has Some Explaining To Do To The N.C. Board Of Elections
North Carolina State Senator and Minority Leader Republican Phil Berger was given a audit letter from the North Carolina Board of Elections on November 20, 2009. The audit letter is below.There are some serious allegations in the audit letter when it relates to lobbyist giving contributions during a period of time when the legislature is in session.There are also other problems with his campaign forms where the North Carolina Board of Elections says the following.
"While these bulleted items are required by law to be disclosed, we realize that a significant amnount of time has passed since the reports in question were filed. Therefore we will not require reports to be amended to disclose the above mentioned items unless requested by members of the public, but you should strive to make sure all reports filed in the future include all required information."
The bulleted items are in the documents below and it sure does want someone to say to the North Carolina Board of Elections to request that State Senator Phil Berger amend your campaign contribution forms . Triadwatch might just be that person from the public to request that the State Senator amend his returns.
Berger Ncboe Audit 2009
"While these bulleted items are required by law to be disclosed, we realize that a significant amnount of time has passed since the reports in question were filed. Therefore we will not require reports to be amended to disclose the above mentioned items unless requested by members of the public, but you should strive to make sure all reports filed in the future include all required information."
The bulleted items are in the documents below and it sure does want someone to say to the North Carolina Board of Elections to request that State Senator Phil Berger amend your campaign contribution forms . Triadwatch might just be that person from the public to request that the State Senator amend his returns.
Berger Ncboe Audit 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Mere Compliance VS. Ethics Reform in North Carolina Letter from Foundation for Ethics in Public Service
With permission from Hayley at the Foundation for Ethics in Public Service. Below is a letter from Executive Director Les Merritt.MERE COMPLIANCE VS. ETHICS REFORM
While the Foundation for Ethics in Public Service CLICKHERE provides a service to the public nationwide, we are based in Raleigh, North Carolina. It is no secret that in the recent past North Carolina has had its fair share of public officials with ethics problems, and some continue to be under the scrutiny of prosecutors, law enforcement, and federal grand juries. When the North Carolina State Government Ethics Act was signed into law in 2006, many hoped that unethical conduct on the part of public officials in the state would at best decrease and at worst be exposed and investigated. Unfortunately, neither has been realized.
The high profile cases of former Speaker of the House Jim Black, former Legislator Mike Decker, former NC Lottery Commissioner Kevin Geddings, former US Congressman Frank Balance, former Commissioner of Agriculture Meg Scott Phipps, and others led to the establishment of a more formal ethics entity for the state of North Carolina. There was hope that establishing a structured and proactive Ethics Commission would thwart unethical behavior on the part of public officials in our state. This sentiment if not expectation was framed by the Commission’s Executive Director when he wrote, “On August 4th, 2006, Governor Easley signed the ‘State Government Ethics Act’ into law. It is the most comprehensive and sweeping ethics law in the history of the State and was the result of a tremendous bipartisan effort in both the House and Senate”. The same publication quotes then Governor Easley to the effect “North Carolina citizens have the right to know that the power they entrust to public officials is not abused for private gain or personal interest.” (attributed to Governor Michael F. Easley, 8/4/06, upon signing HB1843 [State Government Ethics Act], NC Board of Ethics Newsletter, Vol. 9, Issue 8).
However, in nearly three years of existence, the Commission has done little to tackle real ethics issues in our state. Not a single resolution of note has come as a result of any Ethics Commission investigation, even though several dozen complaints have been submitted or referred. For example, the media has reported that former Governor Mike Easley allegedly failed to disclose a seemingly inappropriate relationship on his Statement of Economic Interest, but this went undetected, or perhaps unchallenged, by the Ethics Commission. Meanwhile, a Board of Elections investigation continues into alleged campaign finance violations by former Governor Mike Easley, as well as a federal grand jury investigation of how his wife, Mary, obtained her position (and subsequent 80% raise) at North Carolina State University. These are only a few of the many aspects of possible violations of honest services law apparently before a federal grand jury. None of these issues appears to have been surfaced or investigated by the Ethics Commission. Earlier in the year, Ethics Commission staff said publicly on several occasions that a testament to the ethics and high moral quality of the public servants and legislators of North Carolina is the fact that there have been no substantiated cases resulting from allegations submitted to the Ethics Commission to date.
One has to wonder what exactly is the point of having an Ethics Commission if it is not going to take its role as an investigative or enforcement entity seriously. Do we really need to have ten salaried employees to file financial paperwork and offer advisory opinions? Also, the eight Commissioners who are expected to serve the public as an effective regulatory and watchdog entity have been silent in the face of the State’s continuing ethics crisis. The Commission has entirely too much discretion to ignore or dismiss complaints that come through its office. There is little to prevent management at the Commission from failing to aggressively investigate complaints against those who show political favor or exercise financial and administrative control over the Commission’s operations and budget. Since the General Assembly controls the purse strings of the Ethics Commission, how can the Commission effectively police the same agency that makes its existence possible? By the admission of its own Executive Director, the Ethics Commission is actually more of a compliance or conflict of interest entity than an “ethics” agency. The Ethics Commission must act with accountability and independence, and certainly needs oversight by the citizens who pay them. Since it is difficult to legislate “doing the right thing” as state government is currently structured (e.g. with an Ethics Commission whose members are appointed by political leaders and whose funding is controlled by those on whom it may receive an allegation of wrongdoing), the media becomes not only more relevant, but essential to counter public corruption. It also is essential that non-governmental, independent organizations such as the Foundation for Ethics in Public Service assist the media with investigating and exposing cases of corruption. We are a non-partisan, non-profit organization that does not rely upon the potential or actual subjects of complaints for financial support. Since we do not accept any government money, we are able to freely, fairly, and forthrightly examine all complaints that are received by our office without the fear of being retaliated against by those with political influence, before passing credible allegations on to our colleagues in the media. It is clear that such independent oversight must be as non-partisan, objective, careful, and absent of any zealotry, as all local, state, and federal oversight agencies are expected to be. But one difference is clear: conflict of interest and political influence are much less likely – hopefully absent – when the investigative, referral, and reporting process are in the hands of a non-governmental, non-partisan entity like the Foundation for Ethics in Public Service. Our donors, complainants, witnesses, and the greater public expect, and will receive, nothing less than unconditional objectivity.
Les Merritt
Foundation for Ethics in Public ServiceExecutive Director
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Simkins PAC Illegal Contribution from Action Greensboro on Campaign Contribution Form Mid Year
Below is the mid year 2009 disclosure report where Action Greensboro a non profit illegally gave the Simkins Political Action Committee $5,000, but had to send this money to the North Carolina Penalty and Forfeiture Fund.
20090806_77275
20090806_77275
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Greensboro North Carolina Municipal Elections with Listing of Candidates With No Reports
Welcome to the Guilford County Board of ElectionsThe Greensboro North Carolina 2009 municipal election is heating up and it is time to post on the candidates who do not have any information that has been posted on the Guilford County Board of Elections web site.
Here is what is written on the State Board of Elections under organizing a committee.
After completing the Statement of Organization-Candidate Committee and
the Certification of Financial Account Number Information forms, the
candidate must determine if they intend to receive and/or spend over
$3,000 on the campaign during the election cycle. Keep in mind, any
personal money a candidate spends counts toward the $3,000 limit. If
the candidate determines they will NOT spend over $3,000 for the
12 election cycle (refer to the definition of election cycle in the GLOSSARY), a
Certification of Threshold form (CRO-3600) must be completed. This
Certification states that the candidate will not receive and/or spend over
$3,000 for the election cycle. Please refer to the section on Threshold
requirements for specific information regarding this status.
So as you can see there is a $3,000 threshold but maybe in the future this $3,000 threshold will be obsolete because there might be a bill that will make reporting of campaign finances will be dropped to $500 or hopefully in future it will go down to ZERO so that everyone is held accountable to each dollar that comes into the campaign. This is called transparency.
The Guilford County Board of Elections has a section of their web site called Candidates Financial Reports you can get there from clicking on the title above or the welcome sign at top of page. Below is a list of the Greensboro municipal candidates who have nothing online .
Greensboro At Large
Max Benbassat, no report online
Jorge Cornell, no report online
Gary Nixon, no report online
Danny Thompson, no report online and has already brought out commercials on facebook and looks like they were professionally done . Also has signs all over town and hasn't met the $3,000 threshold , odd.
District #1
T. Dianne Bellamy Small, no report online
Charles Coffey, no report online
Luther Falls, no report online
Ben Holder, no report online
Jeramy Reid, no report online
District #2
Nettie Coad, no report online
Dan Fischer, no report online
Gordon Hester, no report online
District #3
All candidates have a 35 day report
District #4
Mike Martin, no report online
Joseph Rahenkamp, no report online
District #5
Art Boyette, only organizational report
Also saw a sign for people to vote Yes on the Natural Science Center bond. I Hope this organization is going to register with the Guilford County Board of Elections under the section where referendum committees need to register because if you have signs already out then you are getting money into your campaign.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Campaign Financial Reports are Out For Mid Year with Plenty of Candidates Reporting Donors
The new campaign reports are out with a few of the candidates filling out their mid year 2009 report. There are a few missing on this list including Greensboro Mayor Yvonne Johnson, Bill Knight, Ben Holder, T Dianne Bellamy Small, Jim Kee, Robbie Perkins, Zack Matheny and plenty of others.
It is also noted that if you click on Greensboro City Council member Sandra Anderson Groat you will her 2009 campaign returns mid year with total election this cycle filled out it should say zero on total election this cycle not have it say total receipts of $47,174.07 and total expenditures as the same don't know why, but it does.
You can also see that Greensboro City Council member Mike Barber still has over $13,142.03 in the bank account for future use who knows what that might be.
Also At Large Greensboro candidate Ryan Shell has a few interesting campaign contributors along with Nancy Vaughan. You can go to the Guilford County Board of Elections web site by clicking on the title above or the "WELCOME" title below.To also see each indvidual returns click on below their name.
Welcome to the Guilford County Board of Elections
Abuzuaiter, Marikay
2009 Mid Year Report
Alexander, Latimer
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
America's Priorities PAC
2009 Mid Year Report
Anderson, Sandra
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
Barber, Mike
2009 Mid Year Report
Boyett, Arthur
2009 Organizational Report
Concerned Citizens of Summerfield
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
Greensboro Landlords Association PAC
2009 Organizational Report
Hammer, John
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
Hardy, DJ
2009 Organizational Report
Hartzman, George
2009 Organizational Report
Latham, Julie
2009 Organizational Report
Rakestraw, Mary
2009 Mid Year Report
Sellars, Daron
Abuzuaiter, Marikay
2009 Mid Year Report
Alexander, Latimer
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
America's Priorities PAC
2009 Mid Year Report
Anderson, Sandra
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
Barber, Mike
2009 Mid Year Report
Boyett, Arthur
2009 Organizational Report
Concerned Citizens of Summerfield
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
Greensboro Landlords Association PAC
2009 Organizational Report
Hammer, John
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
Hardy, DJ
2009 Organizational Report
Hartzman, George
2009 Organizational Report
Latham, Julie
2009 Organizational Report
Rakestraw, Mary
2009 Mid Year Report
Sellars, Daron
2009 Organizational Report
Shell, Ryan
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
Stand Up Greensboro
2009 Organizational Report
2009 Organizational Report - Amended
Thigpen, Jeff
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
Triplin, Anthony
2009 Mid Year Report
Vaughan, Nancy
2009 Organizational Report
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
We Love PG PAC
2009 Mid Year Report
Shell, Ryan
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
Stand Up Greensboro
2009 Organizational Report
2009 Organizational Report - Amended
Thigpen, Jeff
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
Triplin, Anthony
2009 Mid Year Report
Vaughan, Nancy
2009 Organizational Report
2009 Mid Year Semi Annual Report
We Love PG PAC
2009 Mid Year Report
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)