iPOPA Rebuttal: Rokita's Folks Change Report?

The day before yesterday, I wrote what I thought would be a funny little post about how Richard Mourdock, our state treasurer, had a campaign finance report that didn't add up. While it's not like that error would doom Mourdock's re-election campaign, you'd hope a treasurer can get the finances right, or that his campaign treasurer could, as Mourdock ostensibly oversees those efforts.

The day after my post, an "anonymous" railed on me, stating my numbers were wrong. I found that hard to believe, as I'd studied them carefully and even cut and paste the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet. I went back to the Secretary of State's website, and sure enough, the numbers were right but certainly unfamiliar. When I went home, I double-checked, and what I recorded was not what was now reflected on-line.

Which one of these things is not like the other one?

AR-BC320_20100204_114542>

Even though there is no record of any Mourdock amendment, the on-line numbers somehow changed. I am writing to the co-directors of the Election Division to obtain an explanation, which I will provide later. But the short of it is that I was right, Anonymous.

iPOPA Rebuttal: Rokita's Folks Change Report?

DSCC Coats Coats With Own Idiocy

A few days ago, I had a strong message for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC): don't help.

Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star, reported that the DSCC issued a statement saying, "Indianans won’t ignore Dan Coats’ decade as a lobbyist working the system to gain special favors for the banking industry at the time of financial collapse and at the expense of working Americans.”

Indianans?!? This is why you're in Washington, and we're here. How embarrassing!

But the DSCC redeemed itself by producing the ad below, which, frankly, is devastating for Coats, who stated last week he is collecting signatures to get on the ballot ro run against Evan Bayh for U.S. Senate.

Coats' idiocy here is the stuff of legend. You never diss a place you're not to curry favor with a hometown crowd. In a Youtube era, candidates must assume everything they say will be heard worldwide. Also, any time you have to preface a remark with, "Don't tell I said this, but...." you don't say it.



Thanks are due to Terry Burns at Indianapolis Times for flagging this for us.

The whole video is on Youtube (16:51-21:33). The terrifying part is when Coats says he felt like "shouting out loud" when Sarah Palin was selected as John McCain's running mate because she was a "superb choice." Coats called her "smart, bright, articulate, and not from Washington." Palin is none of the first three, and if Coats values people who aren't from Washington, he might want to not sign his own ballot petition.

DSCC Coats Coats With Own Idiocy

Taking Shots at the Mots Over Bogus Durham Campaign Loan

Back on November 25, 2009, Ogden on Politics reported that GOP sheriff contender Tim Motsinger withdrew from the race due to his association with Tim Durham and decision to return the Durham money. The story concludes:

"I have never heard of a candidate dropping out because he or she lost a political contributor. One wonders whether there might be more to this story."

Oh, there is.

According to Motsinger's 2007 campaign finance report, on October 7 of that year, Durham reportedly loaned Motsinger $200,000. This we all know. BUT in Motsinger's final report, filed on December 4, 2009, he hand-wrote the following intriguing note:

"*-Campaign received a promise of a loan for the disclosed amount that was segregated into a separate business account not under the campaign’s control. The 2009 campaign finance report reflects the dissolution of that agreement and the releasing of the loan agreement."

Let that marinate for a second.

See the problem? A candidate is claiming that he has cash-on-hand of $250,000 back in 2007 and through 2009, when he never took possession of the funds from the $200,000 loan. Moreover, given Durham's shaky financial situation, one wonders if the money ever existed and if Motsinger withdrew to avoid explaining this scandalous episode.

Folks, if this is not an outright violation of campaign disclosure law, it certainly is a destruction of its spirit.

Think about the strategems one could construct. I have ten friends who I ask to loan me $50,000 each, and I tell them, "You don't actually have to give me the money, you just have to give me a loan agreement." Then I report I have a half-million dollars in my campaign, and based on this, I scare away all my opponents and in so doing, I actually do raise a real half-million. When it comes time to pay back the loans, I just "dissolve" the agreements.

In short, the entire Motsinger campaign was the political equivalent of a leveraged buyout, except the public found out the capital was non-existent, which is why Motsinger's takeover failed. Honestly, though I'm not surprised, I'm somehow stunned. If anybody finds the Marion County GOP's soul, can you return it to Tom John?

On the subject of campaign finance report manipulation, I got slammed about my Richard Mourdock story, in which I reported our state treasurer got his numbers wrong. An "Anonymous" tore into me today saying my numbers were wrong. Stay tuned, Anonymous...we'll see who has the last laugh on that one.

Taking Shots at the Mots Over Bogus Durham Campaign Loan