Michael Shear has the info over at the Washington Post's The Trail. Lobbyist Fred has hurriedly put together a 4pm conference call to announce to folks what we've known all along: He's running for President.
Once you get over the shock of the surprising news, you should be aware that this does not make his gross violations of Federal Election Law disappear. As Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks pointed out last week, "Just because Lindsey Lohan is driving sober today doesn't make her DUI charge go away."
We should all continue to hold Lobbyist Fred accountable for his intentional disrespect for the rule of law. This man is not Presidential material.
Showing posts with label Fred Thompson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fred Thompson. Show all posts
Thursday, August 30, 2007
More bad press for Thompson
The Economist says that Thompson's campaign has gotten off to a rocky start. Oh, I mean, his "non" campaign or whatever it is supposed to be.
Either way, it doesn't bode well for a (non)candidate that is supposed to sweep Republican primary voters off their feet with only five months left before the first votes are cast. And...we still don't know when he's going to actually become a legal campaign.
Either way, it doesn't bode well for a (non)candidate that is supposed to sweep Republican primary voters off their feet with only five months left before the first votes are cast. And...we still don't know when he's going to actually become a legal campaign.
NY Times omits Thompson's lobbyist career
This article in the NY Times was published a few days ago. It's a *very* in depth profile of his life and career. It's so detailed that we learn that he married his pregnant girlfriend in high school, but we don't know what came of that marriage.
We also learn that he was the go to man for the Republican Party when they came under scrutiny by the Congress. He was and is the ultimate insider Republican and has been cleaning up their messes for decades.
The article also reminds us that he was the Chief Senate Republican to lead the investigation into the fundraising activities of President Clinton. Isn't it ironic that he is now the subject of an FEC complaint himself?
However, this *detailed* article, while doing a good job at painting him as a total Washington insider, fails to tell their readers that Thompson was one of Washington's highest paid lobbyists for years and years. He has long been part of the problem in Washington. Now he seeks the highest office in the land as some sort of Republican savior. He's definitely done a lot of heavy lifting for the Republicans. But, this isn't what the American people are looking for now. It's time to do a little lifting for everyone, not just the right wing.
We also learn that he was the go to man for the Republican Party when they came under scrutiny by the Congress. He was and is the ultimate insider Republican and has been cleaning up their messes for decades.
The article also reminds us that he was the Chief Senate Republican to lead the investigation into the fundraising activities of President Clinton. Isn't it ironic that he is now the subject of an FEC complaint himself?
However, this *detailed* article, while doing a good job at painting him as a total Washington insider, fails to tell their readers that Thompson was one of Washington's highest paid lobbyists for years and years. He has long been part of the problem in Washington. Now he seeks the highest office in the land as some sort of Republican savior. He's definitely done a lot of heavy lifting for the Republicans. But, this isn't what the American people are looking for now. It's time to do a little lifting for everyone, not just the right wing.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Fred Thompson admits breaking law
The Daily Iowan editorial board addresses Fred Thompson's illegal campaign today. Towards the end of the column is an unbelievable quotation from Fred Thompson. The editorial board continues to make one of the most important points behind filing the FEC complaint:
Were I a supporter of Thompson, I would be jumping ship. He is starting to sound like the Enron of the Republican Presidential Primary.
Considering the importance of the office, it would seem critical to have a set of rules and guidelines to follow concerning the election process. Thompson dismisses those who say he is waiting too long to enter the race: "I wasn't around when they made those rules, and I'm not abiding by them."
Thompson should hope that no one reads too much into his apparent blasé attitude toward FEC rules. Doubtless, his supporters would remind such an individual that, as president, he would regard the rules of the job with much more respect.
Were I a supporter of Thompson, I would be jumping ship. He is starting to sound like the Enron of the Republican Presidential Primary.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
A few comments on the Thompson FEC matter
I've been reviewing some of the blog posts and mainstream media coverage of the FEC Complaint against Fred Thompson's illegal campaign activities. So, I wanted to comment on a few things.
First, credit for this really goes to the progressive blogosphere for their great research on this issue. Without their work, I would not have realized the extent of the violations nor had the information that was assembled to create the complaint.
Second, the complaint is on solid legal ground. Holly Bailey of Newsweek gives her analysis on MSNBC, courtesy of Crooks and Liars. The New York Sun editorial board, which is known to be somewhat conservative, also agreed that the complaint is valid. The final example I'll give is from Bob Bauer, an author and scholar on election law matters. He agrees that the complaint is thorough in its content. There are many more examples that have been published on blogs, in newspapers, on internet websites, and been broadcast on radio and television. Ultimately, the Federal Election Commission will decide. For now, I'm confident in the complaint and believe that the preponderance of public opinion is as well.
Also, some of the writings say that once Thompson announces his candidacy, this will all go away. That is incorrect. In a conversation with officials at the FEC today, they confirmed what I already believed. By announcing and registering his campaign committee, it does not undo the illegal activity already committed. He is still obligated to respond to the FEC complaint and the FEC is still obligated to act on the complaint and render a decision.
Finally, I'd like to thank the active participation of folks from both sides of the political spectrum in discussing this in the comment thread. It honors me to have the supportive comments as well as the hateful ones. Yall are the best!
First, credit for this really goes to the progressive blogosphere for their great research on this issue. Without their work, I would not have realized the extent of the violations nor had the information that was assembled to create the complaint.
Second, the complaint is on solid legal ground. Holly Bailey of Newsweek gives her analysis on MSNBC, courtesy of Crooks and Liars. The New York Sun editorial board, which is known to be somewhat conservative, also agreed that the complaint is valid. The final example I'll give is from Bob Bauer, an author and scholar on election law matters. He agrees that the complaint is thorough in its content. There are many more examples that have been published on blogs, in newspapers, on internet websites, and been broadcast on radio and television. Ultimately, the Federal Election Commission will decide. For now, I'm confident in the complaint and believe that the preponderance of public opinion is as well.
Also, some of the writings say that once Thompson announces his candidacy, this will all go away. That is incorrect. In a conversation with officials at the FEC today, they confirmed what I already believed. By announcing and registering his campaign committee, it does not undo the illegal activity already committed. He is still obligated to respond to the FEC complaint and the FEC is still obligated to act on the complaint and render a decision.
Finally, I'd like to thank the active participation of folks from both sides of the political spectrum in discussing this in the comment thread. It honors me to have the supportive comments as well as the hateful ones. Yall are the best!
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Help provide oversight
Before and after the announcement that Karl Rove was leaving the White House, we've had reports of unprecedented politicization of the Federal Government, including a massive effort to place Republican political operatives in every level of the Federal bureaucracy. ThinkProgress has a great report here. TPM Muckracker has a great archive of their coverage on Rove's abuse of power.
The reason I bring this up is because of the FEC Complaint against Fred Thompson. The legal opinions are unanimous that is is a solid complaint. My fear is that staff at the FEC may have been a part of Rove's strategy to use the Federal Government to benefit Republican candidates for office. I have no evidence of this, just a growing distrust of the process after learning more and more about what the Bush Administration has been up to for the past six and a half years.
So, I'd like to keep up the pressure on the FEC to let them know that the American People expect them to fulfill their duty to investigate these abuses by Fred Thompson. Ultimately, their job is to safeguard the integrity of the American political system. If they fail to do this, it will create a dangerous precedent for further abuses.
Please take a moment to call the FEC at 800-424-9530 to urge them to follow through on the investigation of Fred Thompson.
The reason I bring this up is because of the FEC Complaint against Fred Thompson. The legal opinions are unanimous that is is a solid complaint. My fear is that staff at the FEC may have been a part of Rove's strategy to use the Federal Government to benefit Republican candidates for office. I have no evidence of this, just a growing distrust of the process after learning more and more about what the Bush Administration has been up to for the past six and a half years.
So, I'd like to keep up the pressure on the FEC to let them know that the American People expect them to fulfill their duty to investigate these abuses by Fred Thompson. Ultimately, their job is to safeguard the integrity of the American political system. If they fail to do this, it will create a dangerous precedent for further abuses.
Please take a moment to call the FEC at 800-424-9530 to urge them to follow through on the investigation of Fred Thompson.
Monday, August 20, 2007
FEC Complaint filed against Fred Thompson
Fred Thompson is breaking the law and it's time somebody did something about it. So, this morning, I filed an FEC Complaint against him. For far too long, he has been ignoring the letter and spirit of Federal Election Law for his own political benefit. It reeks of the same disregard for the law that we have seen from the Bush Administration, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, and Mark Foley.
By filing this complaint, posted below, the FEC can now proceed with action to right this injustice. According to FEC regulations, Thompson will have 15 days to respond to the complaint. Then, their lawyers will write an opinion on the basis of the complaint.
It is my contention that he has violated the 'testing the waters' exemption of election law. He has been presenting himself as a candidate for President, he has been raising large sums of money beyond what would be required to explore a possible candidacy, and he has signed a long term lease on a headquarters for his campaign. He has even spent advertising dollars, which are specifically prohibited by the law.
Up to this point, no one has taken the time to take action against this abuse. I hope that the FEC will act quickly on this issue. Failure to do so will contribute to further corruption of the American political process.
Text of Complaint:
August 20, 2008
Lane Hudson
Washington, DC
Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463
Dear Counsel:
I write to file a complaint against the Fred Thompson for President Exploratory Committee for violation of Federal Election Law under the Commission's jurisdiction. It is clear that he has violated 11 CFR 100.72, the "testing the waters" provision of FEC law. Accordingly, his failure to file disclosure reports violates the law, and the Commission should demand full disclosure of Mr. Thompson's campaign fund raising and expenditures, as well as penalize Mr. Thompson for his willful violation of the law.
As I understand the law, a "testing the waters" fund is only legitimate for the purpose of helping an individual decide whether he should become a candidate. Once someone has decided to become a candidate, the exemption no longer applies, and 11 CFR 100.72 lists five factors to determine when that has taken place. On three of these factors, the examples are numerous that indicate that Mr. Thompson has gone far beyond the activities and speech allowable under the law. These examples do not come from personal knowledge, but rather from numerous accounts in the press, some being direct quotations from Mr. Thompson or his staff. Other facts reported are from public documents available on the internet.
On July 31, 2007, Matt Mosk of the Washington Post reported on their blog that Mr. Thompson had filed paperwork with the Internal Revenue Service indicating that he had raised a sum of $3,400,000 for his campaign committee. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/31/the_noncandidates_fan_dance.html)
The Washington Post further reports that this same filing with the IRS indicated that $72,000 of this total was marked for use in the General Election. This is an egregious violation of the "testing the waters" clause, as it clearly indicates an intention for protracted campaign activity. In the same report, former FEC General Counsel, Larry Noble is quoted as saying "I think it's problematic. Clearly it's a red flag."
The report filed with the IRS shows the exact amount raised to be $3,463,355. It further shows expenditures in the amount of $625,743. Among the expenditures are further items worth the Commission's consideration. There were six expenditures totally $168,940 on internet services. This could fall under the advertising clause of the "testing the waters" exemption. Further, there is an expenditure in the amount of $21,142 for Media and $133 spent to Google AdWords, which is an internet advertising service. These all violate the paid advertising clause.
In addition, it is also worth noting that Mr. Thompson's campaign has disclosed that it has paid $88,789 in rent. That is a substantial sum and is another clear indicator that he is operating as a candidate. One further example is an expenditure of $25,322 on legal services. If Mr. Thompson were truly "testing the waters" then the legal needs of a true exploratory campaign would be minimal.
In a June 26 report by the Associated Press (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286820,00.html), Mr. Thompson is quoted as saying "You're either running or you're not running. I think the steps we've taken are pretty obvious."
In a June 4, 2007 interview with Susan Page of USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-05-30-thompson_N.htm), Mr. Thompson was quoted as saying "I can't remember exactly the point that I said, 'I'm going to do this, But when I did, the thing that occurred to me: 'I'm going to tell people that I am thinking about it and see what kind of reaction I get to it.' "
In a July 12, 2007 report by the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102171.html), Thompson adviser Mary Matalin is quoted as saying "He has made up is mind" in reference to his decision about whether to be a candidate for President. As a spokesperson for the campaign, this serves as yet another indication of being beyond the allowable limits of current election law.
In an August 17, 2007 interview on CNN with John King, Mr. Thompson said, "We are going to be getting in if we get in, and of course, we are in the testing the waters phase," he said, adding, "we're going to be making a statement shortly that will cure all of that. But yeah, we'll be in traditionally when people get in this race" (emphasis added). This is the most recent and most blaring example of his intention of being candidate for President, in blatant violation of the 'testing the waters' exemption.
In the July 2, 2007 edition of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070101238.html), it was reported that Mr. Thompson's campaign organization signed a long-term lease on a building that would serve as their national campaign headquarters. This is a blatant example of breaching the 'testing the waters' section. In that same article, Mr. Thompson is quoted as saying that he "doesn't have any big announcement tonight" and further says "I plan on seeing a whole lot more of you, how 'bout that?" This statement also violates the spirit of the law.
While these examples should provide ample reason for the Commission to act to find Mr. Thompson in violation of Federal Election Law, I would like to cite, as additional evidence, recent precedent from the Commission itself. In MUR 5365 (Rev. Al Sharpton for President Exploratory Committee), the General Counsel states on page 8 of his Report:
Based on this reasoning, the Commission found that Rev. Sharpton had violated the "testing the waters" exemption. By applying the same standard, there is no other conclusion that can be reached in this complaint against Mr. Thompson.
One last point worth mentioning, Mr. Thompson had approximately $2.8 million in his campaign account after the IRS filing. This fact also clearly indicates that he did not intend to use this money for 'exploring' a possible candidacy. Otherwise, it would have been spent on exploratory activities, especially given the documentation of his impending announcement of candidacy. In the Sharpton decision, the fine was a significant amount in comparison to the amount raised. I would urge the Commission to adhere to the same standards in administering its penalty to Mr. Thompson.
Respectfully,
Lane Hudson
By filing this complaint, posted below, the FEC can now proceed with action to right this injustice. According to FEC regulations, Thompson will have 15 days to respond to the complaint. Then, their lawyers will write an opinion on the basis of the complaint.
It is my contention that he has violated the 'testing the waters' exemption of election law. He has been presenting himself as a candidate for President, he has been raising large sums of money beyond what would be required to explore a possible candidacy, and he has signed a long term lease on a headquarters for his campaign. He has even spent advertising dollars, which are specifically prohibited by the law.
Up to this point, no one has taken the time to take action against this abuse. I hope that the FEC will act quickly on this issue. Failure to do so will contribute to further corruption of the American political process.
Text of Complaint:
August 20, 2008
Lane Hudson
Washington, DC
Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463
Dear Counsel:
I write to file a complaint against the Fred Thompson for President Exploratory Committee for violation of Federal Election Law under the Commission's jurisdiction. It is clear that he has violated 11 CFR 100.72, the "testing the waters" provision of FEC law. Accordingly, his failure to file disclosure reports violates the law, and the Commission should demand full disclosure of Mr. Thompson's campaign fund raising and expenditures, as well as penalize Mr. Thompson for his willful violation of the law.
As I understand the law, a "testing the waters" fund is only legitimate for the purpose of helping an individual decide whether he should become a candidate. Once someone has decided to become a candidate, the exemption no longer applies, and 11 CFR 100.72 lists five factors to determine when that has taken place. On three of these factors, the examples are numerous that indicate that Mr. Thompson has gone far beyond the activities and speech allowable under the law. These examples do not come from personal knowledge, but rather from numerous accounts in the press, some being direct quotations from Mr. Thompson or his staff. Other facts reported are from public documents available on the internet.
A. 11 CFR 100.72(B)(2) -- "The individual raises funds in excess of what could reasonably be expected to be used for exploratory activities or undertakes activities designed to amass campaign funds that would be spent after he or she becomes a candidate."
On July 31, 2007, Matt Mosk of the Washington Post reported on their blog that Mr. Thompson had filed paperwork with the Internal Revenue Service indicating that he had raised a sum of $3,400,000 for his campaign committee. (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/07/31/the_noncandidates_fan_dance.html)
The Washington Post further reports that this same filing with the IRS indicated that $72,000 of this total was marked for use in the General Election. This is an egregious violation of the "testing the waters" clause, as it clearly indicates an intention for protracted campaign activity. In the same report, former FEC General Counsel, Larry Noble is quoted as saying "I think it's problematic. Clearly it's a red flag."
The report filed with the IRS shows the exact amount raised to be $3,463,355. It further shows expenditures in the amount of $625,743. Among the expenditures are further items worth the Commission's consideration. There were six expenditures totally $168,940 on internet services. This could fall under the advertising clause of the "testing the waters" exemption. Further, there is an expenditure in the amount of $21,142 for Media and $133 spent to Google AdWords, which is an internet advertising service. These all violate the paid advertising clause.
In addition, it is also worth noting that Mr. Thompson's campaign has disclosed that it has paid $88,789 in rent. That is a substantial sum and is another clear indicator that he is operating as a candidate. One further example is an expenditure of $25,322 on legal services. If Mr. Thompson were truly "testing the waters" then the legal needs of a true exploratory campaign would be minimal.
B. 11 CFR 100.72(B)(3) -- "makes or authorizes written or oral statements that refer to him or her as a candidate for a particular office."
In a June 26 report by the Associated Press (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286820,00.html), Mr. Thompson is quoted as saying "You're either running or you're not running. I think the steps we've taken are pretty obvious."
In a June 4, 2007 interview with Susan Page of USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-05-30-thompson_N.htm), Mr. Thompson was quoted as saying "I can't remember exactly the point that I said, 'I'm going to do this, But when I did, the thing that occurred to me: 'I'm going to tell people that I am thinking about it and see what kind of reaction I get to it.' "
In a July 12, 2007 report by the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/11/AR2007071102171.html), Thompson adviser Mary Matalin is quoted as saying "He has made up is mind" in reference to his decision about whether to be a candidate for President. As a spokesperson for the campaign, this serves as yet another indication of being beyond the allowable limits of current election law.
In an August 17, 2007 interview on CNN with John King, Mr. Thompson said, "We are going to be getting in if we get in, and of course, we are in the testing the waters phase," he said, adding, "we're going to be making a statement shortly that will cure all of that. But yeah, we'll be in traditionally when people get in this race" (emphasis added). This is the most recent and most blaring example of his intention of being candidate for President, in blatant violation of the 'testing the waters' exemption.
C. 11 CFR 100.72(B)(4) -- "conducts activities in close proximity to the election or over a protracted period of time."
In the July 2, 2007 edition of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/01/AR2007070101238.html), it was reported that Mr. Thompson's campaign organization signed a long-term lease on a building that would serve as their national campaign headquarters. This is a blatant example of breaching the 'testing the waters' section. In that same article, Mr. Thompson is quoted as saying that he "doesn't have any big announcement tonight" and further says "I plan on seeing a whole lot more of you, how 'bout that?" This statement also violates the spirit of the law.
While these examples should provide ample reason for the Commission to act to find Mr. Thompson in violation of Federal Election Law, I would like to cite, as additional evidence, recent precedent from the Commission itself. In MUR 5365 (Rev. Al Sharpton for President Exploratory Committee), the General Counsel states on page 8 of his Report:
...The Commission's regulations look objectively to candidate's activities, not to the stage of an individual's subjective decision making process, in determining whether the "testing the waters" exemption applies....Once an individual becomes a candidate, equivocal statements of intent, or a future "official announcement" do not eradicate the registration and reporting requirements that have been triggered.
Based on this reasoning, the Commission found that Rev. Sharpton had violated the "testing the waters" exemption. By applying the same standard, there is no other conclusion that can be reached in this complaint against Mr. Thompson.
One last point worth mentioning, Mr. Thompson had approximately $2.8 million in his campaign account after the IRS filing. This fact also clearly indicates that he did not intend to use this money for 'exploring' a possible candidacy. Otherwise, it would have been spent on exploratory activities, especially given the documentation of his impending announcement of candidacy. In the Sharpton decision, the fine was a significant amount in comparison to the amount raised. I would urge the Commission to adhere to the same standards in administering its penalty to Mr. Thompson.
Respectfully,
Lane Hudson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
