The Livingston County Republican Party is in violation of Michigan Campaign Finance Law by failing to turn in its required Pre-General Election Campaign Finance Report before the Oct. 27 deadline. To date, it has not filed the report at all.
This clear violation comes to light just days after state Rep. LaMar Lemmons III (D-Detroit) was found guilty of failing to file campaign-finance statements on time by a jury and ordered to pay $1,095 in fines and fees. Another Democrat, Rep. Alexander Lipsey, is facing similar charges. Lemmons was charged with failing to file four required statements, including the very same one the county Republican Party failed to file, the pre-general election statement. Lemmons is the first known lawmaker convicted of not turning in his campaign finance reports into the Secretary of State through a computer program. This only could have happened under Republican Terry Land.
The Republican Secretary of State and Attorney General chose to prosecute the two Detroit Democrats, yet they let the county GOP walk free.
This is a clear case of selective prosecution.
The real interesting thing is if you look at the report they actually got in on time: the post-general election report on Dec. 7. You will recall how the county GOP tried to make a mockery of the nonpartisan judicial races this past election with their disgusting questionnaire to take the unprecedented step of endorsing in those nonpartisan races.
The questionnaire that was circulated and then pulled when the local newspaper blew the whistle about its contents had the candidates list how much money they contributed to Republican candidates. Apparently, there was a method to their sleaziness because every judicial candidate contributed to the Livingston County GOP in an attempt to apparently buy that endorsement.
District Court candidate Jay Drick, a member of the party’s executive committee who lost in a landslide, was the apparent winner by forking over $2,475. It kind of paid off too. The county party only made one contribution during the entire reporting period. Guess to who.
If you guessed the Committee to Elect Jay Drick then you are a winner, but the citizens of Livingston County are the real losers.
8 comments:
Kevin, what about your county party's office? I didn't see those expenses in last years annual.
BTW - That's not excusing this error (Despite a transfer to a new treasrer at the same time). The "Post-General" should have been the "Pre-general" up until the close of books with the post general covering after the pre's close of book to the next close of books with the annual due in January.
But there's no moral high ground on this issue with your side with some selective non-mentions.
You didn’t look close enough, Wholihan. If you look in the latest report, the Post General report, you will see them. I’m not really sure why that even matters or why I should even care. If there’s a problem file a complaint with the SOS. You have a much better chance of getting some action than your party getting fined for breaking the law.
BTW- it certainly sounds like an excuse to me, and what does transferring to a new treasurer have to do with not complying with the law?
So what are you saying? You’re late on the Pre-General report, and now you’re late on the Post General because you haven’t filed it yet?
What does “with some selective non-mentions” mean? Then mention them.
I certainly did look closely, Shopshire. And I'm not referring to your latest post-general, but the annual covering 2005 (January 2006)- two months after you occupied your office. Either in-kinds or rent payments wern't reported.
I don’t know why I should bother answering your question when you always ignore mine, Wholihan, but unlike you I don’t duck tough questions. I see rent payments to Fonda Place Partners on January 2006. I’m not on the Executive Committee or the office Committee, so I have no idea what the lease agreement was.
I am just speculating, but it is not uncommon for landlords to try and rent a place that has been tough to fill by giving up to three months rent free. Also, the office could have been leased to the end of the year and the party was allowed to piggyback. I have no idea.
Again, we have complied with the campaign finance law, and you, as a member of the executive committee, have not. Isn’t so typical of guilty Republicans to bring up others alleged wrongdoing to cover their crimes, or to attack the messenger.
You can either talk to Joe Carney about the lease, or you can file a complaint with the SOS. We know with her habit of ignoring violations of Republicans and going after Democrats you will at least be heard.
Now, I will ask another question you will ignore. How is it not a violation for a political party to make a political contribution in a nonpartisan judicial race, and why was Drick the only candidate, including partisan candidate, that you contributed to?
We were allowed to give up to $10000 to Jay's campaign. It's not only not a violation to make a political contribution to a so-called nonpartisan race. It was a republican running against an Emily's List democrat. A political party can not only back its team when it is convenient. That's the easy way out. Precidence is well known on support candidates for judicial office - your boys and their "Markman, Taylor, and Young. Oh My!" ads from 2000 prove that.
Now I can't speak for the committee and its decisions, but I suspect Drick was given the contribution since the exec committee should not support one republican over another (Goes back to my stance on coronations). In a race where it was a Republican vs an Emily's List Democrat - it become a whole other situation. In general, republican judges from Reagan onward are more in lines to support judicial restraint, while Carter and Clinton judges are more in line to support judicial activism.
It’s a violation for a political party to give even $1, let alone $1,000, in a nonpartisan judicial race. I wish I had the language available when the P & A first uncovered this dirt from you guys. At the very least it violates the sprit of an independent judiciary.
The "Markman, Taylor, and Young. Oh My!" ads prove nothing because it was for the Michigan Supreme Court, and the nominations for the court come from the political parties at their state conventions. BTW, those ads not only turned out to be correct after the gag order these clowns are trying to issue, but it was not even close to the ad that tried to paint Thomas Fitzgerald as a child molester. You cannot really be a law student. Drick was not the only Republican running in the judicial race, even though party politics is to play no part in the process, so why did he get the only contribution?
Why can’t you “speak for the committee and its decisions?” You’re on it.
It was not a race "between Republican vs an Emily's List Democrat.” You are the one supporting so-called judicial activism. Since you are allegedly a law student you must be aware that Roe Vs. Wade is the law of the land, and stacking the court with wing nuts in an attempt to overturn it is the very essence of so-called judicial activism. The crap about “In general, republican judges from Reagan onward are more in lines to support judicial restraint, while Carter and Clinton judges are more in line to support judicial activism” is exactly that:crap.
Post a Comment