Blog for Democracy

“But we paid for the endorsement!”

full_disclosure.jpgSo when you are a PAC, you have to disclose all contributions with the State Ethics Commission.

And when you are a candidate you have to disclose all expenditures.

So when you see this, you expect to see a corresponding line on the candidate’s disclosure.

And when you don’t, there’s either a fuckup or a story. Here there’s both.

For those that don’t know latin, quid pro quo in politics mean caveat emptor. And when you pay for an endorsement, and then don’t get it, it must leave you seething. That’s why when giving to PACs in exchange for their endorsement, look for this seal:

money_back.jpg

Posted

in

by

Stefan

Tags:

Comments

18 responses to ““But we paid for the endorsement!””

  1. nicolette Avatar
    nicolette

    i wasnt saying it in a disparaging way – i enjoy the debate between the marietta’s and the bfd crowd a lot because they tend to be opposed on everything, yet all are huge super dems

    thats why georgia election years on bfd are my favorite 🙂

  2. Mel Avatar
    Mel

    Damn. I think we’ve lost our foil. The Mariettas are just too popular now, and that’s a good thing.

  3. Stefan Avatar
    Stefan

    I actually like the Mariettas, this does not have anything to do with liking or disliking one or both Mariettas.

  4. innerredneckexposed Avatar
    innerredneckexposed

    The Mariettas also talk to and are respectful to me. Which I’m not sure if that questions their judgment or is a testament to their character. You decide.

  5. Melissa Avatar
    Melissa

    Tim,

    Thanks! And I am team Jacob too!

  6. Tim Avatar
    Tim

    Probably going to get some weird looks for this, but I like the Marietta sisters.

    Politics is a contact sport, and there are few girls that play in the league. Shannon particularly is the exception. The sisters are not afraid to get in and do some heavy lifting and push their candidates to the top.

    But even more than that, one thing I like most about the Marietta sisters, is that even though I’m not sure the three of us have EVER been on the same side of a Democratic primary contest, they are always kind, always say hello, and are always polite. To me that says a lot about their character more so than the campaigns we back.

    I wish Shannon well, and hope it’s a spirited and exciting race. Oh, and Shannon if you’re reading this – Team Jacob!

  7. nicolette Avatar
    nicolette

    sweet! i totally forgot that this being a big georgia election year meant that its a year where the marietta girls duke it out with bfd!

    where’s the popcorn?

  8. Jen Brock Avatar
    Jen Brock

    Just for clarification, both Melissa and Stefan are right.

    Hodges raised 251 to Teilhet’s 150 in the fourth quarter; however, Hodges only has 271 on hand compared to Teilhet’s 249.

  9. Stefan Avatar
    Stefan

    I thought the case on hand numbers were close, 250 to 270 or something like that, am I wrong?

  10. Melissa Avatar
    Melissa

    *was not on a bill

  11. Melissa Avatar
    Melissa

    Hodges outraised him significantly – by almost $100,000 this period. Teilhet was scraping at the bottom of his donor barrel – otherwise a donation of $4,000 from Bobby Kahn would not be there – since he tends to upset many Democrats.

    And let’s not forget that almost $48,000 of Teilhet’s money came from two people – Tim Santelli and Fred Orr – Both good friends of Teilhet (and part of a lunch group that Stefan attends as well).

    I also noticed Teilhet’s name was not a bill recently dropped by Rep. Porter and Rep. Ashe that would prohibit donating in the aggregate for the primary and the general before the primary is over. He would not want to bite the hand that feeds I guess.

  12. Stefan Avatar
    Stefan

    Nah, I mostly think it’s amusing. Hodges was ahead, but they are mostly even overall. Problem for Teilhet is that he cannot raise during session and Hodges can.

    My problem with Hodges has more to do with how he seems to view the office, and how he may choose to use it.

    That behavior with Pheobe Putney has a lot to do with it.

  13. Jen B. Avatar
    Jen B.

    Stefan’s just mad that Hodges outraised Teilhet during the last cycle.

  14. Stefan Avatar
    Stefan

    I am not being picky. If I were I would have said GADCC is not an appropriate abbreviation under Georgia Campaign Disclosure law and is, strictly speaking, a violation. I do think it is impressive that you guys have some sort of gas pump in your office so you can make an IN KIND contribution of gasoline.

    Also, I was not referring to the GADCC line in the disclosure.

  15. Melissa Avatar
    Melissa

    http://georgiaunfiltered.blogspot.com/2010/01/teilhet-declined-to-support-key-ethics.html

  16. Melissa Avatar
    Melissa

    Stefan,

    First, the Georgia Association of Democratic County Chairs is also known as the GADCC, which is listed as a campaign expenditure by Hodges for $175.00. This was for a ticket to their Dinner and Ad in program.

    Teilhet paid for the same ticket to the GADCC dinner yet he listed it as a personal payment to Angela Knight, who is the chairman, but the money did not go to her, but to the GADCC – another mistake of the Teilhet campaign.

    If you want to look at ethical violations, Teilhet listed two credit card reimbursments without listing what the expenses were for, which is an actual problem.

    Second, Hodges was on the host committee for a fundraiser for Nikki Randall. They were told to write the check to WIN for Nikki. When they realized it was a PAC, they were reimbursed the money.

  17. Mel Avatar
    Mel

    First, WIN doesn’t engage in “pay for play”, and even if they did, it’s a PAC for women. Duh. Beyond rookie.

  18. Bernita Avatar
    Bernita

    Stefan, that’s a screw up…those shouldn’t be listed as “contributions” from those organizations; it should be listed as “expenditures” to those organizations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *