Only 5 of the top 50 donors for Ms. Honeycutt even live in GA.

Smells like money laundering to me.

Interesting: One of Ms. Honeycutts biggest donors is the curiously named Nicol Liberal.

That is a very iiinnnnterressting donation history.

Could potentially produce something worse than "Springtime for Hitler."

Not new, tried & true.
But the old model did not include getting caught.
Wonder how this new model can turn profit?

Something looks fishy, but I think it's more with this company and this candidate than with the overall GOP. Of course, when the source is called "Talking Points Memo" to expect anything but talking points would be foolish.

approve

Nabb1:Something looks fishy, but I think it's more with this company and this candidate than with the overall GOP. Of course, when the source is called "Talking Points Memo" to expect anything but talking points would be foolish.

I don't see where this article ties this to the GOP per se, other than the candidates being 'fleeced' are GOP candidates.

But since the candidate in question isn't screaming bloody murder about the $1m in campaign funds raised in her name that she isn't seeing, it seems there are two possible scenarios that could be occurring: 1-She is getting money under the table that she is using for personal enrichment, or 2- She knows that the money is flowing to other candidates who share her ideals.

Either one is illegal.

And the first doesn't really explain why people from Massachusetts and Alaska are so damn interested in her that they are maxing out their personal donations to her.

This is surely a non-story, besides a Democrat probably did stuff that makes it ok even if it were a story.

Skleenar:And the first doesn't really explain why people from Massachusetts and Alaska are so damn interested in her that they are maxing out their personal donations to her.

That's not so unusual. Both parties do that. A lot of Democratic fundraisers in 2006 were asking folks in districts that were considered locked up to donate to candidates in close races. Republicans do it to, and while I may find the practice a tad unsavory (party before country and all that), there's nothing illegal about it. Just yesterday there was an article on Kos about that Democratic candidate whose house burned down and it was asking Kos members to donate to her. What's the difference?

Nabb1:A lot of Democratic fundraisers in 2006 were asking folks in districts that were considered locked up to donate to candidates in close races. Republicans do it to, and while I may find the practice a tad unsavory (party before country and all that), there's nothing illegal about it. Just yesterday there was an article on Kos about that Democratic candidate whose house burned down and it was asking Kos members to donate to her. What's the difference?

See the above to see if it helps you to see the difference.

This isn't new, nor is it confined to the GOP.

Nabb1:That's not so unusual. Both parties do that. A lot of Democratic fundraisers in 2006 were asking folks in districts that were considered locked up to donate to candidates in close races. Republicans do it to, and while I may find the practice a tad unsavory (party before country and all that), there's nothing illegal about it.

Actually, there probably is. Raising money in your name and giving it to someone else-- and not to the GOP at large-- is illegal. If she is donating money to the GOP, then those names need to be tracked, as it counts against their total GOP spending. But it doesn't appear that it is flowing to the GOP.

If this company is keeping it, either paying it out in salaries or in some other unspecified manner, there is almost no way it cannot be illegal.

Skleenar:See the above to see if it helps you to see the difference.

You misunderstood - you wondered why anyone from Massachusetts or Alaska would donate to a candidate in Georgia. I explained that point. I didn't say that was the case here. I'm not trying to excuse this. I was just saying what may motivate people from states far away to donate to a Conressional candidate.

Nabb1:What's the difference?

You mean the difference between donating money to someone who's house just burned down and raising 1.7 million dollars for a candidate and giving 1.5 of it back to the same company?

Like they did in other races?

Yeah...I can't see the difference either, dude.

Obdicut:Nabb1:That's not so unusual. Both parties do that. A lot of Democratic fundraisers in 2006 were asking folks in districts that were considered locked up to donate to candidates in close races. Republicans do it to, and while I may find the practice a tad unsavory (party before country and all that), there's nothing illegal about it.

Actually, there probably is. Raising money in your name and giving it to someone else-- and not to the GOP at large-- is illegal. If she is donating money to the GOP, then those names need to be tracked, as it counts against their total GOP spending. But it doesn't appear that it is flowing to the GOP.

If this company is keeping it, either paying it out in salaries or in some other unspecified manner, there is almost no way it cannot be illegal.

No, I was saying there is nothing illegal in someone from states A and B donating to someone in state C in and of itself. Skleenar found that aspect suspicious. That is not the suspicious part to me. The suspicious part is what you described.

bulldg4life:Nabb1:What's the difference?

You mean the difference between donating money to someone who's house just burned down and raising 1.7 million dollars for a candidate and giving 1.5 of it back to the same company?

Like they did in other races?

Yeah...I can't see the difference either, dude.

I give up. I'm not going to try and explain it over and over to people with partisan chips on their shoulder.

So business as usual then?

Nabb1:No, I was saying there is nothing illegal in someone from states A and B donating to someone in state C in and of itself. Skleenar found that aspect suspicious. That is not the suspicious part to me. The suspicious part is what you described.

And, as was explained to you, all of those donations were solicited for close races. It's suspicious that large numbers of out of state people would contribute to a race that was certainly lost. Moreover, it is suspicious when people contribute to someone who is not spending the money.

Nabb1:I give up. I'm not going to try and explain it over and over to people with partisan chips on their shoulder.

Where does partisanship enter into this? This seems less a political affiliation affair, and more an outright criminal one. I don't think it's important that the GOP is involved.

Nabb1:I give up. I'm not going to try and explain it over and over to people with partisan chips on their shoulder.

A company raises 1.7 million dollars for a candidate that is going to lose by a huge margin and their campaign gives 1.5 of that right back to the same company.

Meanwhile, the money is coming from all over the country.

And, this company keeps doing it.

You're completely missing the area that I am talking about.

There is quite a bit of difference in this scenario and some article you read on KOS about people donating to the victim of a house fire.

bulldg4life:There is quite a bit of difference in this scenario and some article you read on KOS about people donating to the victim of a house fire.

I wasn't comparing this scheme to the Kos campaign only what may motivate people from far away states to donate. I was comparing the donors, not the donees or the merits of the fund-raising scheme. How many different times and ways do I have to put it?

Nabb1:No, I was saying there is nothing illegal in someone from states A and B donating to someone in state C in and of itself. Skleenar found that aspect suspicious. That is not the suspicious part to me. The suspicious part is what you described.

It appears you missed my point.

I don't think people from out of state giving money to a candidate is at all unusual, if that candidate has a chance of winning and helping the donors party increase their control of congress.

I do think it highly suspicious that so many people are giving so much money to a candidate who as fark all chance of winning, especially since so much of that money is not going to the candidate at all.

if you miss my point, perhaps this illustration of an 800 lb Gorilla might help you see what I am getting at:

partisan chips on their shoulder

Crap, does anyone know where I can get spare parts for my irony detector that isn't closed for the holidays ? At least some extra fuses anyway.

Nabb1:I wasn't comparing this scheme to the Kos campaign only what may motivate people from far away states to donate. I was comparing the donors, not the donees or the merits of the fund-raising scheme. How many different times and ways do I have to put it?

I don't know, but your point isn't getting any clearer, so I suggest you stop wasting your time.

Obdicut:Where does partisanship enter into this? This seems less a political affiliation affair, and more an outright criminal one. I don't think it's important that the GOP is involved.

I agree that it is more criminal than partisan, but when I compared people donating from far away in this instance to people donating in the Kos scheme, I suddenly had three people arguing with me over a point I really wasn't making, or at least did not intend to make. The people donating to this probably don't suspect they are being scammed. They probably just think they are helping out someone who shares their political views, just like the people at Kos want to help out the candidate that shares their views.

Skleenar:I do think it highly suspicious that so many people are giving so much money to a candidate who as fark all chance of winning, especially since so much of that money is not going to the candidate at all.

I seriously doubt the mailers are saying she has a fark-all chance of winning.

Mordant:Crap, does anyone know where I can get spare parts for my irony detector that isn't closed for the holidays ?

Clearly your irony detector is indeed not working. Can we get a "Vote Republican and _______" crack out of you while you are gracing us with your presence?

Nabb1:Clearly your irony detector is indeed not working. Can we get a "Vote Republican and _______" crack out of you while you are gracing us with your presence?

Only if you rail on Obama for something while reminding everybody you're independent and hate McCain too!

bulldg4life:Only if you rail on Obama for something while reminding everybody you're independent and hate McCain too!

Ah, a "Fark Independent" joke. How original.

Nabb1:Ah, a "Fark Independent" joke. How original.

do you not at least see the tilted facade you give off when you rail on Obama over insignificant things while sometimes defending McCain over things far less trivial (or completely ignoring McCain issues all together).

Surely you can see the difference in McCain and Obama threads on this website. The variation in post makers and tone is striking.

Nabb1:The people donating to this probably don't suspect they are being scammed.

Oh, I see.

You are starting from the assumption that the donors are victims and are not willing participants in this scheme.

Well, I guess I should give you some credit for a hopeful attitude towards the motivations of others.

If you have a c note send it from any state to Don Young in Alaska and he'll earmark something for you. (Don's filling in while "Duke" Cunningham is indisposed)

bulldg4life:do you not at least see the tilted facade you give off when you rail on Obama over insignificant things while sometimes defending McCain over things far less trivial (or completely ignoring McCain issues all together).

Isn't it strange how everyone sees this even though Nabb1 insists that it's not there?

Bill_Wick's_Friend:..

LIIIIIIIIIIIIBS

Skleenar:You are starting from the assumption that the donors are victims and are not willing participants in this scheme.

Not in and of itself. P.T. Barnum once opined on suckers, I believe. But, they may. I see more of a fleecing scam than a money-laundering scam.

bulldg4life:do you not at least see the tilted facade you give off when you rail on Obama over insignificant things while sometimes defending McCain over things far less trivial (or completely ignoring McCain issues all together).

Surely you can see the difference in McCain and Obama threads on this website. The variation in post makers and tone is striking.

No offense, but I think you are reading a bit too much into that. I have niether the time nor the wherewithall to police every single thread on McCain and Obama (unlike some people I shall not name - not you, necessarily), and I freely admit that while I dislike a good deal about Obama, I seem to have more of an ambivalance towards McCain. Oh, there are a number of things I don't agree with McCain on (e.g. immigration, campaign finance). I don't think that anyone can argue that Obama is the more galvanizing and polarizing figure of the two as well. After all, the Obama threads tend to be far more heated and last far longer than McCain threads do. But, if you want to label me a "Fark Independent" because I am a critic of Obama, feel free. I've been a registered Democrat and a registered Republican and a registered Independent at various times, and I still vote for people in both major parties and independents and even the Libertarians, so if you feel the need to pigeonhole me or label me for quick reference, I guess that is your choice.

Bill_Wick's_Friend:Isn't it strange how everyone sees this even though Nabb1 insists that it's not there?

Let's not even bring up William Jefferson.

In Nabb1's worldview, that man single-handedly represented an equivalent Democratic counterbalance to the GOP corruption of Delay, Cunningham, Abramoff, Foggo, Ney, Gonzales, Libby, Rove, Noe, Taft, Fletcher, Tobin, Doan, Griles, Safavian, Jackson and countless others that I am forgetting right now.

Bill_Wick's_Friend:Isn't it strange how everyone sees this even though Nabb1 insists that it's not there?

You're one to talk. I wouldn't be surprised if you wore DNC Underoos. If they make them. If they don't, they could make a mint off of some folks around here.

Nabb1:I see more of a fleecing scam than a money-laundering scam.

Well, let's make a deal. Let's set the fed on them and see what turns up?

Whaddayasay?

Nabb1:I freely admit that while I dislike a good deal about Obama, I seem to have more of an ambivalance towards McCain.

It's strange that you have to actually say this, since one would expect that a person's political beliefs would come out in conversation. In conversation, you come across as Mr GOP -- always there to defend the right and always there to rag on the Democrats for even the smallest slight. It's only when you "clarify" your positions do your "independant" streaks come out.

That's strange.

Skleenar:Let's not even bring up William Jefferson.

In Nabb1's worldview, that man single-handedly represented an equivalent Democratic counterbalance to the GOP corruption of Delay, Cunningham, Abramoff, Foggo, Ney, Gonzales, Libby, Rove, Noe, Taft, Fletcher, Tobin, Doan, Griles, Safavian, Jackson and countless others that I am forgetting right now.

Well actually you forgot Dubya.

Nabb1:I wouldn't be surprised if you wore DNC Underoos.

And I've never denied that I vote Democrat.

If I now stated "OH NO! NOT ME! I'm an independant! I dislike the Democrats as much as I dislike the GOP!" you'd call me a transparent liar, right?

So why exactly do you think this is believable when you do it?

Bill_Wick's_Friend:It's strange that you have to actually say this, since one would expect that a person's political beliefs would come out in conversation. In conversation, you come across as Mr GOP -- always there to defend the right and always there to rag on the Democrats for even the smallest slight.

Obviously you are not as observant as you believe yourself to be.

This kind of thing is pretty common.

One of the hard parts about being a federal candidate is not getting sucked in to all the scams that amateur fundraisers love to run. It's easy when you don't know anything to get fleeced by some of the con men running around this town.

We can make more money with a flop than with a hit...

Skleenar:Interesting: One of Ms. Honeycutts biggest donors is the curiously named Nicol Liberal.

That is a very iiinnnnterressting donation history.


LIBERAL, NICOL
BROOKLYN,NY 11226 3/5/01 $-45 National Republican Senatorial Cmte (R)
LIBERAL, NICOL
BROOKLYN,NY 11226 3/6/01 $-100 National Republican Senatorial Cmte (R)
LIBERAL, NICOL
BROOKLYN,NY 11226 3/2/01 $-1,000 National Republican Senatorial Cmte (R)
LIBERAL, NICOL
BROOKLYN,NY 11226 REPUBLICAN TASK FORCE 7/20/01 $-1,000 Stevens, Ted (R)


I want to donate negative money to the GOP, where do I sign up?

Bill_Wick's_Friend:If I now stated "OH NO! NOT ME! I'm an independant! I dislike the Democrats as much as I dislike the GOP!" you'd call me a transparent liar, right?

So why exactly do you think this is believable when you do it?

I think you are obsessed with this GOP vs. DNC thing. Maybe the Democrats irritate me more on the issues I consider important while the GOP irritates me more on issues I don't. Why are you so concerned with labeling me? Why do you resort to attacking people instead of discussing the merits of the topic? What purpose does that serve?

Nabb1:Obviously you are not as observant as you believe yourself to be.

Since I'm not the only one who is so misled by your stances I don't think it's my observation skills that are lacking.



You: Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue Blue

Others: Wow. You sure do like blue a lot.

You: Oh I sometimes like red too. You can't pigeonhole me. Blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue blue.

Aside from the occasional assurance that you really aren't just about blue, you are all about blue and nothing else.

illusi0n

Those are either bounced checks or checks that were returned.

Nabb1:Why are you so concerned with labeling me? Why do you resort to attacking people instead of discussing the merits of the topic? What purpose does that serve?

Because it's clear to me (and others, apparently) that your ability to reason critically is impaired by your political slants. I have no problem with that, except that when combined with assurances that you HAVE no such political slants it becomes a bit comical.


Look at this very thread. You're so very quick to claim 'non story' and to rationalize this away as nothing worth worrying about. Finally the admission that there is indeed something fishy is dragged out of you, but you flounce off with a huff because others (hah!) have partisan chips on their shoulders.

Bill_Wick's_Friend:Nabb1:Obviously you are not as observant as you believe yourself to be.

Since I'm not the only one who is so misled by your stances I don't think it's my observation skills that are lacking.

Really? Have you seen me post, say, in any threads on gay marriage? Because I certainly don't tout the GOP line there. On the issue of warrantless wiretaps? I think those need to go. That's just off the top of my head. Ever seen me post about moving away from the Bible belt in part because I got tired of the "religious right"? I've done it repeatedly, so yes, I call into question your powers of observation.

Repeat

Globe story reported this on Sunday

Party of fiscal responsibility my ass

illusi0n:I want to donate negative money to the GOP, where do I sign up?

Yeah, but they did the same trick to the Dems, too.