A report out from Lake Wylie Pilot titled "Feds eye ex-mayor Cannon's campaign in Charlotte corruption probe"CLICKHERE has some interesting observations from local politicians and what has not been done from plenty of Board of Elections all over the State of North Carolina.
In the report was this
"An Observer review of Cannon’s campaign records since 1999 found reports with misleading, inaccurate and missing information that makes it difficult to tell where the former mayor got much of his money. State law requires that candidates disclose the name, address, occupation and employer of any donor who gives at least $50. In about 100 cases since 2011, no job title was listed for donors to Cannon’s campaigns. In about 250 cases, no employer is listed. In about 38 percent of cases since 2011, the information about Cannon’s donors didn’t include either job title or employer. Then we have this later in the report "The Mecklenburg County Board of Elections is responsible for auditing local races. Told of the Observer’s findings, board director Michael Dickerson acknowledged his office needs to improve its oversight of finance reports.
“We obviously have not scrutinized as closely as we should as far as employer and occupation information,” he said."
Obviously Director Michael Dickerson needs tounderstand campaign finance and what needs to be reported on the reports that come into your office that is state law under 163-278.11
§ 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.
Then this was written in report
In North Carolina, the state Board of Elections is charged with looking into complaints for all state and local campaigns. It has two employees assigned to do investigations. The agency is supposed to conduct routine audits on as many as 10,000 annual finance reports for state races, but officials said there is a 10-year backlog due to short staffing. “The state is overwhelmed,” Hall said. “They say they want to do reviews, but they don’t.” State election officials have authority to levy fines on candidates who file late finance reports. They can force office-seekers to surrender improper donations. But there is no fine for failing to disclose donors’ jobs or employers. Innocent mistakes? The Mecklenburg elections board performs routine audits for local races to ensure candidates did not receive illegal donations, file late reports or fail to comply with other rules. But information contained in Cannon’s filings calls into question how closely Mecklenburg reviewed the documents. After large donations from William Bodenhamer Jr., an owner of Charlotte’s Yellow Cab, finance reports described his job title variously as “real estate,” “business owner” and “business man.” In one case, his employer was described as “property development.” In another case, it was blank
This is unacceptable for our state to not audit these records but rely on self policing of the obvious that these campaign treasurers know what needs to be done but fails to do so.
Triadwatch has been doing it's part in the past with plenty of instances where we like to self police these local candidates and their campaign finance reports for example:
June 29, 2009 ex mayor of Greensboro was reported with a headline "Greensboro Mayor amends 2007 2008 campaign forms for second time " CLICKHERE
or on May 29, 2009 we have ex Guilford County Commissioner Paul Gibson on Triadwatch with a headline
"Guilford County Commissioner Paul Gibson with a Letter from N.C. Board of Elections on campaign amending "CLICKHERE
This from the Greensboro News and Record from 2009 thank goodness I copied it because they have lost all connection to past history on their web site
"Keith Brown started a movement that led to reinstatement of protest-petition rights for Greensboro citizens. Now he’s prompted a finding by the N.C. State Board of Elections that Action Greensboro made an improper donation of $5,000 to the George Simkins Memorial PAC for supporting bond proposals. Brown, who writes the Triad Watch blog, says his research indicates many Guilford County politicians are lax in following campaign-finance reporting rules. He’s probably right, and those politicians warrant closer scrutiny. If they don’t comply with the law when they’re running for office, they won’t when they’re in office."
It is a shame that a huge corruption scandal brings this issue to the forefront but here in Guilford County we have been talking about this issue for awhile and we need closer scrutiny from the North Carolina State Board of Elections and put some fines into these reports if they do not comply with state law. Seems like Mecklenburg County has similar problems to what we see in Guilford County in regards to non compliance by local politicians on their reports
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:
________________________________________________________________________________
Here is the first of two e-mails. I have added the article about recent cases about the need for quid pro quo.
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
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.
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.
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.
District #27 Senate Candidate Dr. Trudy Wade has a press release that was sent to the Greensboro News and Record today. In the article was this:
"A candidate for the state Senate will pump gas and pay the taxes for 100 vehicles that line up at the Citgo station at Stoney Creek Village at 6305 Burlington Road. The campaign event for Trudy Wade starts at 9 a.m. Saturday. The Wade campaign said customers will pay for their own gas but Wade will pay the state and federal taxes up to a maximum of 20 gallons per vehicle."
My question is this, Is it legal for a candidate on any level to pay for a citizens gas or pepsi product or any other item during a campaign season? To some people this could come across as trying to buy votes with paying for the gas tax. I am sure that it is well intentioned to highlight the high gas prices we pay in this state but to be paying for the gas tax on maybe a future voter in a race for the senate seat brings up a multiple questions in this press release that was on the Greensboro News and Record and also Yes!Weekly web site. This would be a great question to ask the State Board of Elections.
A Greensboro Election Linkfest I Emailed to Several Members of North Carolina's Press: Perkins, Jordan Green, Matheny, Allen Johnson, TREBIC, Cardes Brown, John Hammer, Amanda Lehmert, Guarino and Bev Perdue
Tucked away in a article this week in the Rhino Times titled "Mayoral Candidates Gang Up on Mayor" CLICKHERE , we have a interesting report from John Hammer on the campaign of sitting at large Greensboro City Council member Danny Thompson. In the report the rhino has this to say,
"Thompson had big problems with his campaign finance reporting two years ago because he paid many of his campaign expenses out of his pocket instead of from the campaign account. It took a number of telephone conferences with election officials to get his amended, amended campaign finance reports in a fashion that was acceptable to the Guilford County Board of Elections.
By paying for advertising with personal checks and then reimbursing himself from the campaign account, there was no record of how the money was actually spent. Campaign finance reports are supposed to track both where the campaign money came from and how it was spent.
Tuesday night Thompson said he filed the same nondisclosure report two years ago and it helped him run a campaign under the radar. He said he planned to do the same this year."
then at end of article John Hammer had this to say:
"The very reason the campaign finance laws exist is an attempt to keep the playing field level and keep campaign spending out in the open. Two years ago Thompson pulled all kinds of stunts to keep his campaign report murky and said that much of the problem was caused by inexperience. This year Thompson has experience and appears to be doing the same type of thing."
This is the type of stuff that makes people like me and others want to report issues like the one that Danny Thompson is trying to pull to the Board of Elections. Sometimes you just shake your head and wonder what Danny Thompson is thinking on these campaign finance laws and why he is doing this again 2 years later. He should have learned from the last time but it seems that he hasn't changed one bit.
On 2-18-2010 Rhino had this post titled "Thompson's Campaign Finances Don't Add Up" CLICKHERE to look at a little history to this story.
Here we go again where we have a email between Greensboro City Council member Mary Rakestraw and William Hammer from the weekly newspaper Rhino Times with him e mailing the sitting council member if she knew anyone who was interested in free tickets to the US Figure Skating Championship. Then at the end of the e mail embedded above you will also see William Hammer from the Rhino also ask if she wanted to holler back on tickets to see Sleeping Booty at Allure on friday night.
Let me try to explain to all local elected officials. You should not be taking free tickets to any event or concert, PERIOD. After seeing this email exchange between a local weekly newspaper and a local elected official it is time ask the question.
Did Greensboro City Council member Mary Rakestraw take free tickets from the Rhino Times and go to the US Figure Skating Championship this past weekend?
Did Greensboro City Council member Mary Rakestraw get free tickets to see Sleeping Booty at Allure on friday night?
This is on top of other issues of free tickets given out to sitting Greensboro City Council members with another post from January 7, 2011 titled "Greensboro City Council Member Zack Matheny Wants Citizens To Buy Tickets but His are Free. any Ethical ? CLICKHERE
This raffle issue with N.C. Senate candidate Jeff Hyde is like the energizer bunny it keeps on going and going and going. Here is a little back post on this issue from July 19, 2010 with a title of post "Jeff Hyde Campaign and the Mysterious Raffle Winner, Who is the Winner?" CLICKHERE .
Now we have a article in this weeks Rhino Times with a title "Hyde Raffle Report Still Raises Questions", CLICKHERE . In this article John Hammer had this to say:
"The problems started when the raffle was won by Hyde's sister Becky Smith, a fact that he would not confirm until last week when he was told that it was a matter of public record in a memo from the North Carolina State Board of Elections.
And it gets worse. Hyde's sister didn't buy a ticket and didn't want the $5,000 that she won in the raffle, so the campaign never awarded a prize and just kept the $5,000. The campaign has raised about $28,000 total, so $5,000 is a considerable amount of the campaign finances and, according to the reports currently filed, there was no $5,000 payout and no $5,000 donation. "
Finally we find out that Becky Smith is Jeff Hyde's sister, but wait it gets better. Later in the article here is what was written:
"This week Hyde said he and his wife bought 10 tickets, his father bought one ticket and a cousin bought two tickets. They all had the last name Hyde and accounted for 13 of the 83 raffle tickets sold. Hyde said that in case one of the tickets bought by a family member won, they thought it would be better if the winner announced was not named Hyde, so they put his sister's name on all 13 tickets. She had a pretty good chance of winning, since her name was on 13 of 83 tickets, or almost 16 percent of the tickets."
Now we see that he wants to put every person with a last name hyde under the name of his sister becky smith for the raffle. If we take what was said above in that jeff and his wife bought 10 tickets then on his campaign returns it does show $1,000 between the 2 of them but it was not designated for raffle as some other people who did give to his campaign in the returns. Also , if the raffle tickets cost $100 a piece and we see that his father bought a raffle ticket but on his campaign returns it shows a Richard C. Hyde from Gastonia N.C. with a $27.00 contribution well below the $100 raffle contribution he was advertising. If you look at his blog he had a campaign to get $27 by the 27th for the 27th district of April not for his raffle. So if Richard Hyde is his father then he didn't give to the raffle either but was counted in the raffle.
When you have contests and other raffles there are plenty of rules like for example no family members or people who work for the companies can win prizes or raffles. This raffle is a great example of why no family members should be able to win and Jeff Hyde knew better but has wanted to hide this for a long time now. All he needed to do is come clean at the beginning and plenty of us who look at campaign laws and returns would have said ok it was a novice mistake but now we see there is more to the story from the Rhino Times and below is the scribd version of the Jeff Hyde's campaign returns with the raffle members who did give on his returns
North Carolina campaign laws doesn't talk about using raffles for your campaigns but even in Guilford County we have had a few others use a raffle to get campaign contributions from Trudy Wade to Lisa Ingle Clapp. If we can consider what has happened in the Jeff Hyde raffle and what has not been reported on his campaign returns where we all know that he needs to amend his returns and show that his sister did give a $5,000 contribution for winning the raffle then this would have cleared up all of this a long time ago.
It also might be time to let our state legislatures know that we might need some ground rules on who can win from campaign raffles or if you do have a raffle to get campaign money then the campaigner and his family members cannot be a part of the raffle for reasons like what we have seen in this issue with the Jeff Hyde Committee.
It is time for a reminder of where you can place political signs in the triad area. Above you will see the regulations for the City of Greensboro and if you would like to see Guilford County, Jamestown and High Point CLICKHERE .
Greensboro City Council member Nancy Vaughan has some pictures of campaign signs that are in areas that are illegal here are a few of the pictures. As you will see these pictures were taken on plenty of places up and down battleground avenue with the last picture taken at the intersection of battleground and pisgah church road where there is a huge median that is owned by the City of Greensboro and the whole median is illegal to post signs on. It is time to take them down .
Greensboro City Council member Nancy Vaughan had this to say on Facebook,
" I am stunned by the number of illegal election signs! It is illegal to place signs in traffic medians or traffic islands. All Don Vaughan, NC Senate signs are placed with the landowners permission. If you see one of Don's signs in an illegal location you have our permission to take it down. I challenge other candid...ates to say the same!! If you can't follow the law how can we trust you to make the law?
These were taken on a small section of Battleground Avenue this morning. I can only imagine what the rest of the district looks like. I challenge people to hold "their" people ("their" team) accountable. When Don sees that one of his signs ...has been put up illegally he takes it down (and the only way that can occur is if it is one of the many that we've had to replace that have been "stolen" from private property and put up somewhere else). Candidates need to train their volunteers to do the right thing. To me, it is a question of integrity and it's the law."
There are a lot of people who just don't care about these rules and regulations . This issue has been going on for a long time with little enforcement but i think there needs to be a NEW RULE . The new rule would be that every sign will have a section of it where the owner of the property will put his address on the sign along with his signature on each sign in the owners property. If there isn't a signature along with the exact address for the sign then the sign is illegal and needs to go. Read the sign regulations and have a great campaign.
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 MalchanceCLICKHEREhad 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
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.
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
Raleigh News and Observer with a title "Democrats raise money, eyebrows" CLICKHERE
It seems like business as usual for the North Carolina Democratic Party with fundraisers like this.Will they ever change? Probably not. Will they ever learn? Probably not.
Here is a few quotes from the article.
"Holding a fundraiser the day before voting on the budget and an ethics bill is an action that the word hypocrisy does not begin to define," said Tom Fetzer, the chairman of the state Republican Party. "This clearly violates the spirit of state ethics laws and reveals that all the Democrats' talk about ethics is just that."
It is illegal under state law for lobbyists to make political contributions to legislators or members of the Council of State, including the governor. It is also illegal for elected officials to raise money from political action committees while the legislature is in session.
But there are no such limits on political donations to political parties. Political parties, in turn, can make unlimited donations to the re-election campaigns of state lawmakers.
This is the same North Carolina Democratic Party who are in the middle of a scandal as we speak in regards to campaign contributions funnelled through the North Carolina Democratic Party to the Mike Easley campaign and they have this fundraiser while the state house is in session and right before the budget is getting ready to be approved, amazing.
Overhauling the whole campaign system is a understatement and the first rule should be this.
IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO BUY YOUR OWN PLANE THEN YOU DON'T GET TO CAMPAIGN ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PLANE , FLY COMMERCIAL OR DRIVE YOUR OWN CAR.
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.
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
During the Guilford County Commissioners meeting on April 15, 2010, Commissioner Linda Shaw had something to say about the upcoming primary, click on the embedded video above.
As you can see from this video, it seems that Guilford County Commissioner Linda Shaw thinks it is OK to say during a commissioner's meeting that if you live in Stokesdale, Summerfield, Oak Ridge and northern part of Greensboro, Linda Shaw would appreciate your vote for her in the upcoming republican primary.
This might not be illegal, but it sure is unethical for a commissioner to say this during a meeting.
The Guilford County Commissioners meeting gets televised all over the area from cable channel 8 on time warner. This is why we see some people talk about the equal time that opponents want in elections because the incumbents have a huge advantage if they are going to do unethical acts like Commissioner Linda Shaw did during the meeting, in telling people in the third district that she would appreciate their vote.
You can also hear the laughing in the background at the end and the videographer panning back to Chairman Skip Alston laughing.
This was not funny and needs to be addressed by the county attorney.
This type of unethical behavior needs to stop, and for the record the county attorney Mark Payne should completely strike what Commissioner Linda Shaw said from the record, and take it off the county web site of video.
If they repeat this meeting on cable access channel 8 then take it off as well. During the next Guilford County Commissioners meeting, Linda Shaw should state that she made a mistake and would also like to say that you can also vote for Sam Spagnola as well in the primary if you live in oak ridge, summerfield, stokesdale and northern parts of Greensboro for equal time to all candidates.
We will see what happens next, but this act by Commissioner Linda Shaw might not be illegal but surely it is unethical.
