Dave, did you see a paid for by... on Yaphett's lit?

It is also interesting to note that the El-Amin flyer that is linked to in the post does not have "paid for" information on it. Between this flyer and the mystery poll from the end of June it's hard to see what money is being spent within the rules and what is not.

In June the Arch City Chronicle reported that El-Amin was polling.

http://www.archcitychronicle.com/archives/001723.php

Two weeks later she released the results of the poll to media accross St. Louis. The press release was poorly done and embarassing on several levels but it clearly states that the poll took place.

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

On July 14 El-Amin denied to the Jake Wagman that she paid for the poll. If she didn’t who did? Clearly the poll was taken for her and the results were shared with her and her campaign only. They were not released to the media or other campaigns.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/news-politicalfix/2006/07/city-fix-caucasian-comment-cause-stir/

In her most recent Ethich Committee Finance Report the El-Amin campaign released did not account for this poll and nobody has said anything.

Meanwhile El-Amin is passing out this campaign literature all over the the 4th district without saying if her campaign or someone else has paid for it.

I am less interested in knowing who has endorsed her and more interested in trying to "follow the money".

Curtis Royceton.

there is no "paid for" statement on the el-amin lit.

If true . . .

Dual/multiple endorsements are not unheard of -- just less useful.

Listing her husband among her endorsements shows some desperation in creating Yaphett's list. I guess the endorsement of the 1st ward committeewoman is on TD's state rep lit in return.

No disclaimer on lit, no disclosure of polls, misspelling of people who endorsed her and problems with proper spacing. Not good this close to the election.

Both El-Amin and Smith have distributed materials without the "Paid for by" disclaimer. I don't know if El-Amin has also mailed lit without the disclaimer but Smith did recently with a mailing in Dogtown on his letterhead.

Jess, I think the Ethics commission should look into both of them then.

I would say that every campaign has an innocent mistake from time to time but when you start mass distributing thousands and thousands of glossy pieces of literature around town without proper atribution it is a problem.

The biggest question is not whether El Amin left the language off her card but whether she paid for it at all. If she didn't, who did? The same thing is true for the mystery poll. There is nothing wrong with doing a poll unless you use someone else pays for it outside of the legal limits and hide this on your campaign finance report.

Mistakes happen with every campaign but this is a trend with El-Amin.

---disclaimer but Smith did recently with a mailing in Dogtown on his letterhead.

It's certainly possible it has changed, but his letterhead used to have a disclaimer printed upon it.

Bottom line: a candidate that wants to have the public trust cannot be submitting legal reports delinquently. It is a persistent problem.

Has anyone ever been kicked out of an election for violating these campaign laws we are speaking of?

If not what's the point? I honestly want to know.

Otherwise your opponents complain, most voters don't care, you win the election and pay any minor fines with more illegally raised cash.

Rev.Al Smith,Rev.James De Clue, and Rev Tommie Pierson have given money to Yaphett but not Boykins, so I don't think they support Boykins, and Boykins must be misleading voters. Rev. Tommie Pierson is President of Metropolitian Congregations United for St.Louis(MCU) and member of Riverview School Board. You should ask him about Harold Brown. Harold Brown was his so called camapign manager, and demanded $5000.00 from Pierson also. Harold Brown should be called the $5000.00 man.

Yeah, Mr. Cross is back to give us the Yaphett spin, but once again, I ask that he please address where the mystery poll came from. And while we're giving titles out, can we call you Captain PR?

Every day that goes by without the El Amin's addressing the issue of who paid for the poll makes the whole thing seem even more suspicous. Perhaps being silent is their best option given their failure to report the poll on their Missouri Ethics Committee finance report. I think the whole episode really stinks.

There are two different kinds of expenditures by third parties that benefit candidates:

If a third party pays for something either at the request of the candidate, or if the paying party consults with the candidate or her/his campaign about it, the expenditure is an "in-kind contribution," which (1) must be listed as such in the candidate's campaign report, and (2) is subject to dollar limits (through the end of this year), which is $650 for a state senate district. In this situation, the campaign literature so produced should say "Paid for by [name of candidate committee]," even though not literally paid for by that committee. Go figure.

If the third party does it completely independent of the candidate, without the candidate's knowledge or consent, it is an independent expenditure ("direct expenditure" in the parlance of state law), is not required to be included in the candidate's campaign reports, and is subject to no dollar limits. Literature so produced must have a disclaimer saying "Paid for by [whoever actually really paid for it]." That's the loophole used by those financing school board candidates, who claim independent expenditures even though the candidates pose for pictures used in the literature, taken by a photographer hired by the payor of the "independent" expenditures. The MEC has never shown any inclination to go after abuses of these expenditures. (They do, however, pursue complaints about no-disclaimer literature.) If the maker of these expenditures is itself a committee, these expenditures (and a summary of the expenditures by candidate) must appear on their own campaign reports. Individuals or businesses that make these expenditures must file campaign reports if their expenditures (not including actual campaign contributions made directly to a campaign) exceed a certain amount, I think $500. That provision of law is violated routinely.

Just for reference, Just 12,500 pieces (barely enough to cover a single ward) of plain white letter-size paper printed on both sides with black ink only, with no folds or cuts, will cost more than $650, without counting postage or other distribution costs. Anything else (e.g., folds, color ink) increases the cost. If the printer donates it or subsidizes the cost with a d*scount (the spam screen doesn't allow posting with the actual word) not offered to the public generally, that is itself an in-kind contribution by the printer, subject to reporting and dollar limits.

obiburt kaiouiupojl