What day were these due?

Why is El-Amin's postmarked July 18th? Wasn't it supposed to be in or postmarked by July 17th?

Actually, the rules are:
"Note: If the last day to file a report with the Ethics Commission or other appropriate officer other than the Ethics Commission, falls on a Saturday, Sunday or an official state holiday, the deadline for filing is extended to 5:00 p.m. on the next day which is not a Saturday, Sunday or official holiday. Any report mailed to the Ethics Commission must be postmarked prior to the due date to be considered timely filed."
I am assuming both Gambaro and El-Amin will be getting late fees.

what I wonder more aobut is when Jeff Smith is going to get around to all his late findigs from his 04 race. And what about the illegal contributions that he received? Will those ever be returned? Why don't his oopponents from the 04 race file a complaint with the FEC. I can see that now that he won, Carnahan doesn't want to make waives but why wouldn't Favazza or the other Smith or one of the otthers do soemthng? Don't they care abuot the integrity of the system?

The real campaign finance question in this race at the moment is how did El-Amin pay for the poll that she released in a press release that appeared in full in the ACC?

http://www.archcitychronicle.com/archives/001765.php

She later denied to the Post Dispatch that her campaign had paid for it. I don't understand this. Is she saying she didn't have anything to do with poll? If so, why is she the only one to see it and who did pay for it? Will the ethics report she filed today reflect the price of the poll as an in-kind contribution or will it show that she paid for the poll?

I would be happy for her report or someone else to set me straight but I think these will be very pertinent questions if they are not addressed soon.

Larry,

Nice slander. I don't believe you have any idea what you are talking about. You should present evidence if you have it. Otherwise you should keep your misinformation to yourself. We need to police this site against this kind of nonsense.

I suspect that this will not be the last time Smith (and other candidates) have to put up with desperate attacks. We should not and cannot tolerate it online, in whisper campaigns or otherwise. We will be a stronger community for it.

Doesn't look like Yaphett reports paying for her poll on her ethics committee report. This does seem pretty strange. Anyone know if her husband's campaign committee paid for it?

Just look at the FEC site for info on Jeff's 2004 filing issues. It's all there. Well, it's not all there, and that's the problem.

Jen,
I am not sayng that just Smith has a problem. Yaphett may breaking the law too and if she does, it should be publicized and she should be held accountable. It is what is right and voters need to know this stuff. I only focused on Smith because it is so obvious and what he did was crimianl. He has at least five individuals giving more than $2000 and he has not given it back for over two years. Maybe the FEC is on the verge of bringing charges, but the average voter knows nothing aobut this. It could be like Al Hanson all over again.

===It is what is right and voters need to know this stuff. I only focused on Smith because it is so obvious and what he did was crimianl. He has at least five individuals giving more than $2000 and he has not given it back for over two years. Maybe the FEC is on the verge of bringing charges, but the average voter knows nothing aobut this. It could be like Al Hanson all over again.

Or the FEC screwed up. There was some problem in communication with the FEC which continues to this day despite Jeff's lawyer insisting verbally and in writing that all correspondence being sent to her, it's going to New Hampshire still. There were some initial problems after the campaign ended and the reporting switched, but when attempts were made early to get the FEC to respond, they kept corresponding to an old address here, that the Treasurer no longer lived. Even after the change in committee was filed this continued and when contact information was updated to Jeff himself, they continued to try and contact Nick. Finally, Jeff got them to contact him and after returning, they continued to send it to his temporary address after being informed of his new address. The money was returned, the paperwork isn't in order.

Now, I'd suggest that saying criminal charges are pending might just make your claim libelous given it's reckless disregard for the truth since you don't have any information on the situation. Beyond that it shows a tremendous amount of ignorance regarding the process given nearly all penalities for campaign finance federally are dealt with as civil matters.

Jeff's filings in 2004 were a disaster from day one. Yes, the excessive contributions were refunded, but there are still things that need to be corrected. My problem is that this is not as difficult a process as ArchPundit makes it sound. Stoll had some issues - his were cleared up before his committee terminated. Other candidates in that race had issues with thier filings and those were settled. Why Jeff and his staff can't get that wrapped up and get himself in complaince is bizarre.

=== My problem is that this is not as difficult a process as ArchPundit makes it sound.

Because the FEC isn't cooperating. It's pretty simple in that when you try and ask them how they want you to fix it and they send a non-answer to the other side of the country despite verbal and written requests to direct it towards the lawyer, it's hard to fix it.

I have to admit, I'm not sure I thought a bureaucracy outside of the SLPS could be this incompetent, but hearing the stories is hysterical if it didn't create a hassle for Jeff.

It's fairly common with the FEC that a small issue becomes drawn out because no one will make a firm decision.

Think about the complaint about the postcard in 2004. As far as I'm aware, people were only interviewed for the first time a couple months ago. As someone who tried to track down the information, my memory is pretty damn fuzzy at this point.

ArchPundit,
Thanks for your take and the inside info from the Smith campaign. They just seem to be ignoring this issue (much like El Amin is ignoring the polling question) and it would be nice to have this stuff answered before Election Day. I don’t understand why he can release a press release on the School Board but not this.
Since you seem to know what is going on in the campaign I‘ll ask you my questions.
First, you say the problem is really caused by the FEC b/c they sent notices to the wrong address. Assuming that is true, wouldn’t Smith know he has to keep filing quarterly reports until he files a termination report? I have only been involved with a few campaigns, but that seems pretty basic. Even though he knew he had to file the quarterly reports, he did nothing from 10/17/04 to the present. (He did try to file a termination report on 7/06/05 but that is even more troubling given the fact that he had not returned the illegal contributions.) In total he failed to file 7 reports. That doesn’t sound like the FEC’s fault.
Second, you say the illegal contributions were returned. I don’t see any record of that, but let’s suppose that your statement is correct. In the 10/17/04, filing Smith reports the campaign as $15,322.54 in debt with an unpaid loan of $32,000. So the campaign is $47,322.54 in debt. (We can skip over fiscal responsibility issues for now.) How did he pay back the $12,000 in illegal contributions? Did he accept $12,000 from someone else? Is he receiving money and disbursing money without any report to the FEC? Then he tries to file a termination report with the FEC without accounting for the donations or disbursements? That is illegal too.
Let me know where I am confused on this one.

===He did try to file a termination report on 7/06/05 but that is even more troubling given the fact that he had not returned the illegal contributions.)

First, they weren't illegal. They were legally given at the time. If he had kept them, they would be illegal, but they were returned. They weren't accounted for properly, and as I expressed to Jeff, and this conversation points out, that was really dumb. And they should have sent in the final forms at that point probably.

The problem in terms of filing was between the primary and the next report, the reporting was turned over from Nick Adams. At that point, the mistakes happened about filing and I cannot offer a good reason for that--there really isn't one. My understanding is that there was no activity not reported other than the campaign donations returned and that was apparently due to confusion over how to list them. I don't think it's hard to figure either before you ask that question, but that's what happened. Then the notices went to the wrong place---. Until Jeff's father--who was supposed to figure this out, was told about some mail left at the address Nick used to reside at and he found out about the problem. My understanding that the FEC was contacted right after that and essentially they've been asking for help from the FEC since. The FEC wouldn't allow them to amend the previous statements once they did the termination notice so they are in a limbo. Then the FEC kept finding the wrong place to send correspondence--even after Jeff's election lawyer informed them to send them to her.

I don't actually sit in with the lawyer so I can't say exactly why she has not had him file every piece of paperwork once they discussed it. I just can't answer the question though the impression I get was she was trying to nail down exactly what they expect and what can be done to minimize the problem for everyone and, they keep sending the correspondence elsewhere....

The loan is just a loan from himself so he didn't expect to get it back--just as Russ, Joan and others in that race loaned money to themselves. That's a pretty standard thing in campaigns--if you loan it to yourself, you can pay it back if later from other contributions. Jeff didn't want to ask donors for money for debt and he never really expected to get it back.

I think the loan comes out even with the returns or pretty close--the debt is just written off because it's Jeff's money.

Nick's first reports required some amendments the first time around, but then up until he left after the primary everything was reported reasonably well. After that the reporting is sloppy and now Jeff's caught in a Catch-22 with the FEC which he's trying to resolve.

In terms of why isn't there a press release? Not many campaigns put out information that doesn't make them look good so I don't think it's so strange---and Jeff is happy to chat with anyone who asks about it--though he might be having the lawyer comment now given the hassles with the FEC.

This is a really boring conversation.

Archpundit- if this is the best Larry can do, let him run with it.

Campaign finance is tricky business. Notice Yaphett's non-reporting of the poll and Derio's conviction of campaign finance malfeisance when he ran for state rep.

I'd be more worried about those deliberate omissions rather than some technical errors on Smith's report. That stuff happens and the FEC is notoriously slow and inept.

Hey, has anyone else gotten a handout from the El-Amin camp. I got one the other day on my door, very shiny, but no paid for by. Am I the only one who has gotten one, or noticed.

Between the flier, Yaphett's poll that was not accounted for in her Ethics Committee Finance report and her husband running at the same time there seems to be money flying around from lots of different sources. We need transperancy and I am not seeing it.

It also seems that Yaphett's tres. doesn't know how to file reports... the "Committee" box isn't checked anywhere, not for the AT&T PAC, or the 80th Leg. Cmt.; it seems to me that checking the box is a really simple thing to do!

Archcity Pundit,
Thanks for the response. I have had problems with power and haven’t been able to get out to respond.
I should note that this may be boring to ZZZZZ. (ZZZZZZ don’t see or read All the President’s Men either; you will find all the follow the money stuff in it boring too.) Even if Jeff has paid off his loan himself, he is still about $30,000 short. (The $12,000 he must/did pay back and the over $15,000 he was short on the final filing. (I think you might have double counted his loan.)) According to your sources, he paid the over $2,000 contributions back. That is a total of at least $12,000 in disbursements not covered in his filings. According to the 10/17/06 filings, he already disbursed the $15,322.54 that he over spent and that puts his filing in the red. These are not just debts that need to be paid, they have been disbursed. (His $30, 000 loan was already figured in as a contribution; him forgiving it does not effect the net totals.) So he had disbursed about $30,000 more than he had. Where did he get that money and why has he not reported it? If the problem is the FEC, he can just send a press release or post on the ACC. (Mr. Drebes would you be willing to post it?) I am sure voters would rather see where the money is coming from before rather than after the election.
The relevant thing he needs to address is who gave him the money and when did he get it.
If he does that I’ll stop worrying about it. What bugs me is he had to have the money to make the disbursements. Most of these were made two years ago.

Hey Larry,

Is that your e-mail? If not, drop me a note at archpundit@yahoo.com. I believe the lawyer is finishing up an affadavit which should have been done some time ago--but I know Jeff would be happy to drop you a line sorting out the problems. The affadavit is coming---and actually it had been put off as the campaign got busy, but to your credit, you got it back on track through this discussion. So it will go to Dave when it's ready and Jeff is happy to pass along the information to you before then.

The Other Larry
ArchPundit