« MDE EXCLUSIVE: DFL LEGISLATOR FAILS TO DISCLOSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST? | Home | MDE EXCLUSIVE: DID DENISE DITTRICH FAIL TO DISCLOSE CONFLICT OF INTEREST? »
MDE REALITY CHECK: ALAN FINE RECEIVED CONTRIBUTION FROM AN ACTIVE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE
By Michael B. Brodkorb | August 21, 2006
Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.
The 5th CD Republican Committee registered on June 26, 2006 and they contributed to Alan Fine's campaign on June 27, 2006.
Alan Fine received a contribution from an active Republican committee, not a "non-existent Republican committee" as reported by Blanked-Out:
"To be honest, I don’t know yet if this is illegal or just a colossal mistake. Either way, the Republican Party along with the FEC need to give voters some much needed clarity on the issue." Source: Blanked-Out
Well Blanked-Out, you made the "colossal mistake." Let me know if you need any tips on how to do FEC searches.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 22 Comments »
22 Responses to “MDE REALITY CHECK: ALAN FINE RECEIVED CONTRIBUTION FROM AN ACTIVE REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 21st, 2006 at 5:33 PM
Michael:
Thanks for the clarity. Still not sure why that committee didn’t show up in any of my searchs in the 5th.
But this only answers part of my post. According to your link, the FEC ID number of the new 5th CD Republicans is C00426205.
That’s not on Fine’s disclosure – that FEC ID still points to the Republican Party of Minnesota. Why?
August 21st, 2006 at 5:34 PM
And I don’t ever have to apologize for “wishing” for the truth. =)
August 21st, 2006 at 5:46 PM
I’m not sure why, but I don’t think it’s a huge deal.
August 21st, 2006 at 5:58 PM
I agree – I’ve updated my post.
In fact I think due to our intrepid investigations, we’ve helped Fine avoid a FEC fine, since he can now file an amended report before the primary. Congrats!
August 21st, 2006 at 5:59 PM
[...] UPDATE: MDE has found the committee that gave the money to Fine. Instead of refiling, they created the Fifth CD Republican Committee instead of restarting the 5th CD Republican Committee. [...]
August 21st, 2006 at 6:28 PM
I wouldn’t call what you did today by any means “intrepid” Noah so get off your high horse…we’re tired of seeing your postings all over the place…leading back to your site like you’ve uncovered the holy grail. Beyond the blatant mistake, what you did today is not only trivial, but will come back and bite you in your immature butt.
August 21st, 2006 at 6:55 PM
I don’t think Noah made a “colossal mistake.” He appropriately updated his post and raised some good points that are very valid.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:12 PM
Good on you, Noah. The righties are now breathing a sigh of relief.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:20 PM
I agree with Aaron – is the CD5 GOP organization THAT … well … disorganized that they allowed their FEC registration to lapse? And for months at a time, in an election year? Seems pretty valid to me.
August 21st, 2006 at 7:29 PM
All the CDs were told to abandon their federal accounts b/c it counts against the statewide federal limit under McCain Feingold.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:18 PM
Peter:
Interesting – are you saying they were told to disband by the RPM?
If so, why didn’t the 4th CD Republican Committee disband in 2005?
Not trying to shoot your theory down – just rying to get more information.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:24 PM
KH: I think there is a lot more common ground on this particular issue then you’d like to admit. I didn’t use hyperbole while describing what I found.
I put out a call for more information on this issue on my blog. That’s the strength of the blogosphere – people from different walks of life with different talents coming together to solve a problem or verify a claim.
Michael answered that call with FACT, which we all could use more of.
Also, my use of the word “intrepid” was used to describe both Michael’s research and myself. I wouldn’t call that a “high horse”, but you are entitled to your opinion.
August 21st, 2006 at 9:40 PM
Noah, you’re the new Roving Reporter and Brian Hanna…you just like to see your postings everywhere I don’t think you gained anything today except carpal tunnel or dismembering your party. Please put a fork in it, you’re done.
August 21st, 2006 at 10:44 PM
Whew, close one, we almost lost the 5th district
August 21st, 2006 at 11:14 PM
Noah, it predates my involvement, but yes, that is my understanding of the reason the federal account was closed. Don’t know what happened in 4th CD. At some point, the green light was given to raise federal dollars again.
As I understand it, if any party committee within a state is raising federal dollars, it counts against a single limit. This is as a result of McCain Feingold. You can understand how confusing this would be, having city, county, and congressional districts all raising federal dollars and bumping up against the limit. To soften the blow on smaller party committees, Sen. Carl Levin created what are known as “Levin Funds.” These don’t count against statewide federal limits and can be used for party building activities (as so-called soft money was used in the past), as long as you include state and local candidates along with the federal candidates. So a congressional district could have a state account, a federal account, and a Levin account.
I may be oversimplifying campaign finance somewhat, and I was not in on all the conversations, but that is my understanding of the closing of the federal account. No scandal here.
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:24 AM
Also, if the CD organizations were told to abandon their federal accounts, why did the CD5 GOP reinstate theirs so they could cut a check to Fine?
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:24 AM
At some point, it was clarified that the CDs could maintain federal accounts. I don’t have a specific date on that.
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:33 AM
I wasn’t insinuating there was a scandal.
If trying to make the best of byzantine FEC regulations was a “scandal” well, most of the political establishment would be in jail! =)
In fact, I wasn’t aware of the impact McCain-Feingold has on the non-state committees.
It’s a sweet bit of irony that political committees have to create three different accounts just to avoid financial confusion.
I’ll start looking for it myself, but where do these “Levin funds” live? Are they disclosed at the FEC level as well?
All of this is pushing me quite close to joining the public financing camp once and for all.
KH: Ad hominem also covers guilt by association.
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:58 AM
Shouldn’t he ask if it was a colossal mistake before receiving the contribution?
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:59 AM
You would only need a Levin account if you had maxed out your federal limits from contributors, as was the case in the olden days of so-called soft money. Because they are so new, I doubt that all (if any) CDs have them. Plus the contributions have to be legal under state law, so I don’t know how useful they are in MN.
With that, I have exhausted my knowledge of campaign finance. My eyes have officially glazed over.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:17 PM
This contribution made his mind blur and forgot to put himself some questions.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:42 PM
What I see is that the form was either filled out on June 26th or backdated to seem like it was filled out before a check was cut. If you look at the documentation to which MDE linked, you will notice that the application was receieved on the July 10th and postmarked on July 5th. Filling out an application and filing it are two different things.
But… who really cares. I just pointed this out because if it was the 5th CD DFL, MDE would be jumping down their throats.