Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Herald Tribune (SW Florida))   FEC tells congressional candidate that she can't accept $94,000 in restitution from her thieving campaign manager because it would violate campaign contribution laws   (heraldtribune.com ) divider line
    More: Ironic  
•       •       •

5212 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Apr 2006 at 10:23 AM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2006-04-21 07:42:49 AM  
Registration required article :(
 
2006-04-21 07:49:24 AM  
That's the dumbest thing I've read so far today. Her campaign manager steals 97,000, loses 27,000, and is then prevented from paying her back because it would violate the limit for one person contributing to a political campaign.

Tip to the judges: it's not a contribution. It's restitution.
 
2006-04-21 08:39:13 AM  
This isn't another donation, this is the return of stolen goods. The cash should be reinstated.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2006-04-21 08:46:10 AM  
For those who can't RTFA (which loaded fine for me):

The campaign manager's parents are offering to pay back the money their son stole. It is not direct restitution. "FEC spokesman George Smaragdis said that since the parents are paying the money back, it's a complicated legal question."
 
2006-04-21 09:11:28 AM  
Pretty funny. I hope this costs her the election, it couldn't happen to a nicer party!
 
2006-04-21 10:16:13 AM  
I'm still kicking myself for once believing that campaign finance "reform" solves anything. It's just another layer of bureaucratic B.S. and administrivia.

Here's a hint: want to reduce corruption in politics? Then cut back the size and power of government.
 
2006-04-21 10:22:17 AM  
If this breaks one more politician I am for it. However, this is just another reason that campaign limits are ridiculous. Why don't they go back to regulating the amount of water I can use to flush a deuce?
 
2006-04-21 10:31:14 AM  
I_C_Weener: Why don't they go back to regulating the amount of water I can use to flush a deuce?

Because they're trying to figure out how to tax you down to just flushing a single.
 
2006-04-21 10:31:39 AM  
Its better to Beg Forgiveness than to Ask Permission.
 
2006-04-21 10:32:06 AM  
nashBridges

Tip to the judges: it's not a contribution. It's restitution.


Restitution is my second favorite of the stitutions, right after prostitution
 
2006-04-21 10:32:35 AM  
Common sense surrenders.

/MasterThief is right.
 
2006-04-21 10:34:04 AM  
Well, that's a seat gained for the Democrats.
 
2006-04-21 10:34:59 AM  
Too bad the seat is safe for Republicans.
 
2006-04-21 10:37:36 AM  
MasterThief

Here's a hint: want to reduce corruption in politics? Then cut back the size and power of government.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner. Think about it, would someone spend the amount of time/money on a campaign if the money/power they receive wasnt worth the attempt? Reduce the power of government and people wont spend millions to win a job that pays $200k (or wahtever).
 
2006-04-21 10:37:38 AM  
So the FEC won't let me be...
 
2006-04-21 10:38:00 AM  
ELECTI0WNED!
 
2006-04-21 10:40:27 AM  
thank god for McCain and Feingold, with all their campaign finance reform, now its impossible for our leaders to be corrupt.
 
2006-04-21 10:40:34 AM  
MasterThief Here's a hint: want to reduce corruption in politics? Then cut back the size and power of government.

hmmm...that's kind of like saying:

hey, you want less pepperoni and cheese? then order a smaller pizza.

the recipe, that's what needs to change.
 
2006-04-21 10:41:21 AM  
Sir Charles

thank god for McCain and Feingold, with all their campaign finance reform, now its impossible for our leaders to be corrupt.

Reason #1 that I wont vote for either for Prez in 2008.
 
2006-04-21 10:43:18 AM  
She said "I can lose my election because I got robbed?" Which seems like fitting karma for the party which robbed the 2000 election.
 
2006-04-21 10:44:02 AM  
Politicians are used to finding ways to enable fraud, not prevent it...
 
2006-04-21 10:46:16 AM  
tasteme

Lord Acton had it right. I will go with one of his less well known quotes:

"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to to govern. Every class is unfit to govern."

Power corrupts. Corruption is proportional to power. If you want to reduct corruption use must reduce power. It doesnt matter what laws change, or who you vote in. Voting out all incumbents wont solve the problem. Voting in Libertartians (which I favor) wont solve the problem unless they actually cut the power of government (which they might for a term or two - after that they will be just as corrupt, just hopefully they would cut back enough to make their corruption not as bad).

The better analogy is: If you want to lose weight, order the small pizza instead of the large.
 
2006-04-21 10:46:37 AM  
If I recall correctly, the IRS allows annual gifts of $11,000 per year. The parents individually could give all but $5,000 to the son, who could then pay it back to Detert. Then the parents could make their own donations to Detert's campaign and cover all but a few hundred.

Their lawyers and managers are morons.
 
2006-04-21 10:46:49 AM  
wyckedsmile:

Way to make sweeping generalizations. I'm sure she represents the Republican party as a whole, and was solely responsible for Kerry losing in 2000.
 
2006-04-21 10:54:13 AM  

Here ya go flaEsq:



Detert finds replacing cash not that easy

The $94,000 from her campaign could be tied up for six months.
By JEREMY WALLACE

jerem­y­*w­al­l­a­ce[nospam-﹫-backwards]e­n­u­bir­t­dl­ar­eh*com
Congressional candidate Nancy Detert is having a difficult time replacing money that was stolen from her campaign bank account and then returned.

Detert, a Venice Republican, wants to put the $94,000 back into the bank and keep campaigning, but she's already been warned that she should clear it with the board of the Federal Election Commission.

Now, Detert is worried that the money will be tied up for six months while her attorneys and FEC attorneys haggle over campaign finance regulations.

Meanwhile, opponents for the 13th District seat -- who were already outpacing her in fund-raising -- will gain even more ground, she fears.

"This is almost getting impossible," Detert said. "I can lose my election because I got robbed?"

FEC officials say they just aren't sure how to handle the money being paid back to Detert because they've never seen a case like this.

Randy Maddox, who was Detert's campaign treasurer, took $97,000 from the congressional campaign early this month and flew to South America.

He was in Argentina for nine days before his parents talked him into returning to the United States, according to Detert.

When he returned, Maddox, 42, said he lost $27,000 while in Buenos Aires, so he couldn't restore the full amount he had taken.

His parents agreed to pay the rest of it back, according to Detert and an attorney representing Maddox.

But FEC officials say returning the $27,000 to the candidate could violate campaign donation limits that prevent individuals from giving more than $4,200 to a candidate per election cycle.

FEC spokesman George Smaragdis said that since the parents are paying the money back, it's a complicated legal question.

Also, Maddox hasn't been convicted of stealing, or even charged.

Detert now has to find an attorney to draw up a formal request for an advisory opinion from the FEC and try to find a way to get her money restored.

Detert, who is a state representative, is in Tallahassee until early May. She said she doesn't really have the time for all this back and forth.

She said she pleaded with the FEC, but that FEC officials told her that her best option is to loan her campaign $94,000 while she waits for a ruling on the fund-raising question.

Detert said she doesn't have that kind of money.

Her competitors in the campaign include Republicans Vern Buchanan, Tramm Hudson and Donna Clarke.

The 13th Congressional District seat is being vacated by Rep. Katherine Harris, who is running for U.S. Senate. The district includes all of Sarasota, DeSoto and Hardee counties, plus most of Manatee and part of Charlotte.

 
2006-04-21 11:00:05 AM  
Tjos Weel

ok. let me see here:

power = corruption

ibertartians = - corruption

+ power to ibertartians = corruption

something doesn't add up here
 
2006-04-21 11:01:36 AM  
of course there should be an "L" in there somewhere
 
2006-04-21 11:02:19 AM  
You republican haters, don't go blowing your load just yet. Apparently, all her major opponents are republican. This is Katherin Harris' old district. Guess you'll have to take your circle jerk elsewhere.
 
2006-04-21 11:04:32 AM  
I can't believe this nimrod was going to throw away his whole life and live on the lam in Argentina over... $94,000? That may be a lot of money down there but he's only 42. I'd need at least, $500K if I was a broke, worthless 42 year old to give up my citizenship and live in Argentina.
 
2006-04-21 11:07:44 AM  
tasteme

Apparently, you didnt read what I posted. I said I thought Libertarians would be corrupt to. The only hope is that before they were corrupted by the power, they would reduce it some. Idealism for 2-4 years, followed by corruption taking over.

I have enough faith in human nature to know that even politicians I like and trust will eventually become scumbags if elected.
 
2006-04-21 11:09:17 AM  
hillary, I only belatedly realized this was your city. My own has been described as "a comic opera with property taxes."

Not wanting to unnecessarily handicap any political candidate for any reason, I just called Detert's offices. Annual gifts are limited now to $12,000 each, so the parents could give all but $3k back to the son to return as restitution. The remainder they can make as campaign contributions themselves. Problem solved within a week.

RE: Ethics complaint. Why is it the penalties so rarely really are penalties? One recent exception I saw was Fannie Mae paying $3.8 million in fines over $1.7 million in illegal fundraising.
 
2006-04-21 11:16:56 AM  
sowned
 
2006-04-21 11:19:55 AM  
Tjos Weel Apparently, you didnt read what I posted.

don't take this the wrong way, but a minus sign means subtract. a plus sign means addition.

your last post reiterates what I said.

Libertarians would be corrupt, too

please read my last calculation.

do you think Libertarians will actually whittle away at this shiat?

come on, now, they are part of problem

/no offense, just good conversation
 
2006-04-21 11:21:36 AM  
oryx - Well, that's a seat gained for the Democrats.

Don't be such a dumbass. This is a primary election and there were at least four others running last I checked. On top of that, the district is overwhelmingly Republican.
 
2006-04-21 11:26:22 AM  
rcole Ya, sweeping generalizations for the sake of sarcastic humor is acceptable, I think.

AdeptusAstartes You republican haters...Guess you'll have to take your circle jerk elsewhere.

We're organizing on your front lawn right now! ;)
 
2006-04-21 11:26:56 AM  
Here's a hint: want to reduce corruption in politics? Then cut back the size and power of government.

Seems to me that just transfers more corruption to the private sector, where the American people have no
 
2006-04-21 11:27:35 AM  
Er, no oversight. At least the electoral process provides the opportunity for it, even if no one takes much advantage of it in our latter-day degenerated democracy.
 
2006-04-21 11:27:42 AM  
Wouldn't reducing government just increase corrupt corporate behavior? Then again, the FTC already receives tablescraps for funding.
 
2006-04-21 11:31:22 AM  
"Fascinating" story... but where are the tag nazis at?

For me, this doesn't score at all well on the Morissette scale.
 
2006-04-21 11:31:27 AM  
look at mexico
 
2006-04-21 11:38:38 AM  
tasteme

Here is my thought. Currently under the Republocrat system corruption is at 100 (arbitrary scale). Lets say thru some bizarro magic, a libertarian majority got elected to congress this fall (this is a purely hypothetical argument we are having). Since none of them have been congressman before, they wouldnt be corrupted immediately, it would take some time. Maybe as much as 1.5 years (when they suddenly realize they need to get reelected). If the first reelection, it would get even worse. After 2 terms, forget about it, they would be fully corrupt. However, fully corrupt is proportional to the power of government, and while they were uncorrupt or only partially corrupt, they would have reduced that. So, the new equilibrium of corruption is at 70 instead of 100. or maybe its at 98.

2nd point, how are libertarians part of the problem, they would need to be elected first.
 
2006-04-21 11:43:54 AM  
rcole Way to make sweeping generalizations. I'm sure she represents the Republican party as a whole, and was solely responsible for Kerry losing in 2000.

In your effort to make a sweeping generalization of your own, you made one Gore-y error.
 
2006-04-21 11:46:36 AM  
Well, at least she won't be able to use that money for her legal defense fund, the way Duke Cunningham and Tom DeLay have. And I expect Bob Ney will be following suit.

/DRTFA
//Politicians are using campaign donations to pay for defense lawyers in criminal cases.
///Slashie
 
2006-04-21 12:08:13 PM  
Tjos Weel

good point. I have just a little time to respond at the moment, but I'll read your response in a little while.

you stated: So, the new equilibrium of corruption is at 70 instead of 100

equilibrium requiers two (for lack of a better word) "things" to act accordingly with one another. a 70 to 100 ratio is hardly that. Libertarians are a contributing player to a whole set of "equal" problems that we face.

it's like trying to balence on one toe while juggling...in the dark.

my point is: there is a whole set of problems that need to be set just right in order of the equation to work. Libertarianism needs to be practised and refomed with every other function in order to work properly. I agree your with idealism, but it's not something that can be applied in reality...especially with other peoples' idealisms at work.

/gotta go for a little while
/I'll definatly check back
 
2006-04-21 12:18:48 PM  
OK, I'll pile on.

This guy stole neary $100,000, flew to Argentina, "lost" $27,000, and he's not even been charged with a crime?

Must be nice to be a Republican in Florida with a rich mommy and daddy.
 
2006-04-21 12:24:02 PM  
Just so you all know, Detert is the candidate with one of the smallest campaign chests, which is why this is hurting her so much. if I remember correctly, her closest opponent has a warchest in the millions, which she does not. I honestly hope she can recover from this, as I think she is one of the more uncorrupted politicians.
 
2006-04-21 12:25:10 PM  
tasteme

The equilibrium would be caused by 2 things. The tendency of libertarians to decentralize power and the tendency of politicians to increase their own power. Currently their is no equilibirum bacause neither major party wants to decentralize power. So power grows and corruption grows along with it. Im not sure if libertarians could actually reach an equilibrium point, but they arent going to get elected either, so I dont have to worry about actually being right.

Not here to argue libertarianism anyway. My whole point in all this was that the system isnt broke and cant be fixed. The system works as expected. Would Hobbes be surprised at the growth in federal government? How about Locke? Or Acton, since I brought him up earlier?

The only difference would be in their reaction. Hobbes would tell us to accept it, its better than anarchy. Locke would recommend overthrowing it and starting over (I would guess). Tinkering with the system doesnt do any good, which is why McCain-Feingold is so stupid, ignoring its unconstitutionality.

Im really an optimist. Just not on this topic.
 
2006-04-21 01:33:54 PM  
FatherG: Here ya go flaEsq

Thanks for the help, it doesn't seem to like me, although I I had referrer logging on in Opera it still wanted a registrationy. Usually turning referrer logging on works (it does for that Azstar site...)
 
2006-04-21 02:17:26 PM  
This makes me laugh. There wouldn't be an FEC if the GOP wasn't so into rat-farking and dirty tricks. The only way to make campaigns fair is to make them publicly funded.

BWAHAHAHA!

oh for a second I thought that might actually happen. How fun!

Peace
 
2006-04-21 02:32:11 PM  
ZAZ [TotalFark]
The campaign manager's parents are offering to pay back the money their son stole. It is not direct restitution. "FEC spokesman George Smaragdis said that since the parents are paying the money back, it's a complicated legal question."

that doesn't make it a complicated legal problem. it is a separate legal issue where his money came from, than the fact that he owes restitution in this amount. he pays it. if he gets it via loan from somewhere (including his parents), that is a separate, personal transaction unrelated to the campaign.

/duh.
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report