John Richardson Campaign; Worker Voter Fraud Prosecutions

rklindell, no way Richardson can raise the funds in short order to be competitive. At $750 a pop, there is no way individuals, union or not, will generate enough cash flow for JR to be competitive. Plus, there is no way the unions will make significant independent expenditures (which will trigger matching funds) for this wounded duck. They will not back someone who was unable to get his s¤¥t together and qualify for clean election funding. If the improbable occurs and the Ethics Comm'n declares him qualified, someone (with hidden ties to Libby?) will file suit, challenge the decision and seek an injunction to prohibit the release of funds until it can be demonstrated that he legally qualified. That delay will further cripple his lame candidacy. Stick a fork in him.

Don't we just love it when they do this to their own!!!

'Everything is done, it’s just they are missing the signature,'

Good a time as any to remind everyone getting ready to launch their boats for the season: don't forget to put the plug back in.

Apparently, the commission can take all the time it needs....

"The commission and its executive director may take additional time if further investigation is necessary to verify compliance with this Act as long as the commission notifies the candidate regarding the anticipated schedule for conclusion of the investigation."

Imagine the fun you'll have "qualifying" for a hip replacement.

If you look at the form to be submitted with the checks, it is abundantly clear (at least as clear as you can make it to anyone who can fog a mirror) that you are supposed to both print your name and then sign the form, which is a form of affidavit, so to speak.

Further, the circulator of the form signs to this statement:

=======================================================================

I, (Print name) _________________________________________ affirm that: (1) I collected the qualifying contributions, (2) the contributor signed this form in my presence, (3) to the best of my knowledge and belief, the signature is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be, (4) the contribution came from the personal funds of the contributor, (5) I did not give anything of value to the contributor in exchange for their contribution and signature, and (6) I did not represent the purpose of collecting the contributions and signatures to be for any purpose other than obtaining public funds to finance the candidate’s campaign.

===================================================================

One might argue, then, that the form (with accompanying checks) should be discarded if it is missing a signature, because the circulator signed to a false statement.

Do-overs, do-betters, and overtime periods notwithstanding.

Remember one operative definition of an attorney: one who has a vested interest in creating and prolonging conflict.

Seems like it's time for another one of those classic Billings comments: "OK, folks; nothing to see here. Keep moving, please."

I posted on the other thread that I did not believe that the law allowed a candidate to get signatures after the deadline.

Traditionally financed candidates certainly labored under that understanding of the rules.

April 23rd dawns over the Pine Tree State. Still no word from "Ethics." Deadline day, properly managed by all of the other candidates, is fading into a distant memory.

All is quiet. Hushed.

Here's some commentary from a site I was unfamiliar with:

center for competitive politics

It looks at the subject of public financing in general.

It's quarter to three....
There's no one in the place except you and me.

So set em up Joe,
I got a little story you ought to know.

We're drinking my friend, in the end
to a dream that's in the commode.

So make it one for that Johnny, and one more for the road.

Here ya go, Mel...that was a hemlock cocktail for Johnny, right?

The rumors are flying that Richardson will NOT qualify and will drop out of the race.

I can't confirm the truth of this rumor, but it is out there.

I heard the same thing last night over dinner.

The silence from the Ethics Comm'n speaks volumes. If he was going to qualify, we would know by now. If you also consider the earlier statement from he campaign spokeswoman, it seems pretty apparent Richardson's campaign has had ample time and opportunity to claim to have met the requirements of the law. Yet, the campaign is not even publicly claiming it should get the money, the silence again tells the story. At some point, enough time will pass where it begins to seem odd for the Ethics Commission to delay or fail to issue a final decision, for all the public to see.

What's the point of not issuing a decision?

Is there no obligation to say yea or nay?

Darkness settles over Maine. April 23rd is nearing an end. Birds rustle in the budding trees, going down for the ever shortening Spring nocturne.

April 24th and 25th will come. And go.

Will we hear on the 26th?

What if we hear that he did NOT make the cut? More special handling? Also true if EVERYONE else did, except him? Or did those who made the cut get the special handling?

Or is the concept applicable to this situation in the first place? If he does not make the cut, I agree with others here that this will be (at the VERY best) a millstone around his neck as he attempts to swim across the Casco Bay of the governor's race.

But that does not translate well as a favoritism claim -- unless you can establish the decisionmakers as delusional. That'd look a lot more like a guy that took too long to get his campaign underway.

For you, Mr. Udall:

TJC: I read that last post twice, and I can't make heads or tails out of it.

Just what you'd expect from the unwashed, I suppose. Trying to put everything into tidy little boxes.

Would the Ethics Commission be required to disclose if their review has transformed into an investigation?

IMHO the silence is the awful feeling of having to say "no " to one of the elite who championed CE etc. etc.. This is different then nailing some half hearted candidate that bought asleeping bag etc. or whatever with our money!!!

Of couse it would be better if it had been somone not so close to and in the "in "crowd.

TJC: If Mr. Richardson wanted to use spend our money, I would have expected that he submit the required materials, properly executed, by the close of business on the specified deadline date. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As it turns out, the lady he apparently had in charge of the task, the one cited in the articles, is a transplant from the staff of Mike Michaud, where she did press secretary duty.

So to put a wrap on this, are the experts suggesting a strong possibility we will get NO declaration from the Ethics Commission, leaving us to assume that Richardson didn't make it?

By the way, if he doesn't, is there any reason F. Lee Bailey couldn't slip him a quick $200,000 to make it through the primary? That seems like short money given the possible returns on investment.

Other than the $750 contribution limit and the fact that it wouldn't be a good investment to give money to a candidate whose campaign has been dead in the water for a month, nothing.

The Ethics Commission meets next Thursday. My guess is Richardson has been told that the staff has determined he did not qualify and he has been asked if he wants to appeal to the Commission.

He is not on the agenda (yet). But another candidate who missed the deadline is.

http://www.state.me.us/ethics/meetings/2010/20100429.htm

Besides the issue of being half an hour late, the paper work has not been completed. On several pages the circulators certification was not filled out.

He complained about the clerk not certifying people correctly, but I have no sympathy for him. Several of the checks were collected well before the deadline and he submitted them all to the clerk on the day they were due.

We would do well to find him a replacement after the primary.

Steven Scharf
SCSMedia@aol.com

Agendas can be amended.

I was just pointing out that he is not on it yet.

Steven Scharf
SCSMedia@aol.com