On March 16, 2009, Ike Randolph, the former City-County Councillor (and alleged aspirant to that same post for 2011) filed his 2008 year-end campaign finance report showing a robust $11,546 cash-on-hand as of 12-31-2008. That report was signed by Randolph's treasurer.
The next report Randolph filed was two weeks ago. Except for the name and address of his committee, it's ten pages of blank. Literally. Not even zeroes and no accounting for the $11 grand. Also, though there is no record of an amended statement of organization, which is required when you change your treasurer, I'm pretty sure Mr. Randolph signed his own report as treasurer. Judge for yourself.
Campaign finance reporting deadlines can creep up on you, and anybody who has prepared a report knows they are a tremendous hassle. But they are also critically necessary. Every interested person should be entitled to know from whom money was received and, as Carl Brizzi's recent report impressed upon us all, how that money was spent.
A blank report fails to comply with Indiana law and lets the public down.
Maybe Randolph's money has been sitting untouched. If so, that should be the easiest amended report a candidate could file. What is Mr. Randolph waiting on? In contrast, if the money is not sitting there, the public deserves to know where it all went.
Not completing a CF form is not only bad policy, it's bad politics. Failing to fully disclose what is required on the report leads a cynical public to ask, "What do you have to hide?" I hope my party's candidates and elected officials will continue to take to heart that their actions can respond emphatically, "Absolutely nothing."
You just have to be willing to take them.
4 comments:
That's Tim Durham's signature. Duh.
How would go about officially questioning this or will the election board do this automatically? I thought Ike was ethically challenged when he was on the council and I would hate to see him return.
I'm not sure why people care this much about what was just a mistake on Ike's part, yet have no problems ignoring the Wishard report which reveal a major attempt to subvert the reporting requirements. Every expenditure by the Wishard folks was funnelled through a PR firm so they didn't have to reveal who received the Wishard money. Also, millions came in to Wishard through two nonprofit corporations, while the PAC received very little money from indivdiuals. Almost certainly, the Wishard folks had people contribute money to the non-profit instead of directly to the Wishard cause. That makes political contributions suddenly tax deductible. I'm pretty sure though the IRS wouldn't be amused by the practice and neither should the Clerk's office. It's a deliberate attempt to skirt election laws.
Scott Keller pocketed $29,000 from his campaign account and claimed it was repayment of a loan that he had not previously disclosed on his reports.
Post a Comment