Joe Lieberman has a new campaign finance problem, a "petty cash" one. We may never know what he bought with nearly $400,000 in petty cash, but it sure purchased increased cynicism in the political process. Some say these are the kinds of problems that occur when an Enron Lobbyist is your former Chief of Staff.

image link

That's a $135,000 petty cash disbursement from Joe Lieberman's latest FEC report. It's not the only one either...

In fact, Lieberman's massive slush fund comprised almost 8 percent of all of his expenditures in the reporting period. That's almost one out of every $12 that Lieberman is effectively hiding. His campaign disbursed $387,000 in unmarked "petty cash" in just 12 days. That's $32,000 every single day, with no accounting at all for how it was spent.

What's worse, it happened right before the primary as their campaign was sending thugs to disrupt Ned Lamont events and instigate fights with the candidate, campaign manager and supporters.

What was Joe Lieberman buying? Who was Joe Lieberman buying? And did he break the law?

The last answer appears obvious, yes.

A political committee may maintain a petty cash fund out of which it may make expenditures not in excess of $100 to any person per purchase or transaction. If a petty cash fund is maintained, it shall be the duty of the treasurer of the political committee to keep and maintain a written journal of all disbursements. This written journal shall include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. In addition, if any disbursement is made for a candidate, the journal shall include the name of that candidate and the office (including State and Congressional district) sought by such candidate. -- 11 CFR 102.11.

HT: Adam B

Other administrative costs on Joe Lieberman's FEC report were accounted for.  He paid for gas, food, printing salaries and other "petty" expenditures, and noted those costs on the report.

So where did the money go?  

Here are more images of Joe's "petty cash" disbursements.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Ned Lamont's campaign itemized just $500 in petty cash during the reporting period.

David Lightman of the Hartford Courant has another important article in today's paper about Joe's FEC report. He joins Jenny Medina of the New York Times and Mark Pazniokas, also of the Courant, in detailed perusals of the incumbents source of campaign funding.

After voting against cloture on John Bolton, twice, Joe Lieberman indicated his support for the President's nominee for Ambassador to the United Nations. It's a nomination, by all accounts, that is already dead in the water.

Why the flip-flop?

Yesterday's debate between Ned Lamont (D), Alan Schlesinger (R) and Joe Lieberman (CFL) changed the dynamic of the entire U.S. Senate contest in one short hour. After receiving assurances of support and large sums of money from Republican heavweights, Joe Lieberman finds himself locked in yet another bitterly contested primary ... this one for the Republican nomination.

The Hartford Courant's Colin McEnroe wrote:

When Lieberman was invited to respond he said, pointing toward Lamont, "I thought the attacks were going to come from this side. I didn't know they were going to come from that side too." [...]

Lieberman unintentionally disclosed another thing he believes: that the fix is in and that he doesn't have to worry about Republican opposition.

Someone forgot to tell Alan Schlesinger yesterday.

As Mark Pazniokas writes, Joe Lieberman finds himself in a bit of a "no man's land," unable to even affirm the country would be better off with a Democratic House as a counter-balance to President Bush.

Another interesting wrinkle to this story is Connecticut's role in opposition to John Bolton. The state's Senior Senator, Chris Dodd, literally led the fight against Bolton in the United States Senate earlier this year. There was bipartisan support for his effort as well, as Lincoln Chafee provided the death blow to the president's ill-conceived nomination.

Ned Lamont released the following statement on Joe Lieberman's flip-flop:

“Once again, Joe Lieberman has broken with the people of Connecticut. A year ago, he opposed John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations because he was unqualified. At that time, he had the power of a bipartisan majority behind him in opposing Bolton. Today, when the political winds shift in the other direction, Senator Lieberman is supporting John Bolton, who has no more experience or qualifications for the job than he did a year ago. That's not leadership.

“Today it seems as if Lieberman's only constituents are George Bush and Dick Cheney. His support for the administration's foreign policies is wrong for America and wrong for Connecticut. The world is in crisis, and we need a UN Ambassador who's respected and effective at the UN. With major threats to this country such as Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, we need to have someone there who can deal diplomatically with our allies, advance our interests effectively, and keep America safe. That description does not fit John Bolton. [...]

“Lieberman's flip flop on Bolton as well qualified and deserving of the position further shows that he'll do anything to get re-elected. We need real leadership, not someone who for 18 years sticks his finger in the political winds and goes only where the wind is blowing, even when it's against Connecticut's interests. Lieberman previously opposed Bolton's nomination, but has now embraced him because George Bush asked him and Alan Schlesinger challenged him.

You can read Ned's entire statement at Connecticut Local Politics

Consider the following excerpts from the editorial.

[Congressman Sherrod] Brown also claims that trade with Central America has no allure because the region is too poor to buy U.S. products. True, the boost to U.S. exports won't be huge [...]

Finally, Brown suggests that ordinary Central Americans oppose the CAFTA deal, which has been thrust on them by business. It's true that anti-CAFTA protesters have come out into the streets in Guatemala, El Salvador and Costa Rica, but the passion of a few thousand people should not be mistaken for the will of the majority. [...]

None of which is to pretend that the CAFTA deal is perfect... But, for all its flaws, CAFTA deserves to pass the House.

By the time "Wrong Way Marshall" flipped the ball out of bounds, he was standing in his own end zone, netting the opposing team two points.  By the time you get done reading the Washington Post editorial in favor of the agreement, you realize how severly flawed CAFTA actually is.  

The Post points to the allure of lower prices as a reason for legislators to vote "yes" on the agreement.  Unfortunately, this flies in the face of American public opinion.  Americans for Free Trade, an organization opposed to CAFTA, sponsored a poll that showed 74% of Americans oppose the agreement if it reduced consumer prices but resulted in job loss at home.  As Congressman Brown points out in his book, The Myths of Free Trade, the corporate media never allows public opinion on economic issues to get in the way of its editorializing.

The narrow passage by Congress of the North American Free Trade Agreement in November 1993 masks the uneveness of the debate.  The Washington Post gave pro-NAFTA arguments literally six times the space in its editorials and op-ed pieces.  [...]

A media-watch group, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, surveyed the Washington press corps in the late 1990s on a wide range of economic issues.  The 441 respondents--reporters and editors alike--were "to the right of the public" on almost every major point. [...]

[O]nly eight percent thought it [NAFTA] had a negative impact.  Only 32 percent of the public believed NAFTA's impact has been positive, while 42 percent of the public believed it was negative.

Americans in the United States and Central Americans alike oppose this trade agreement--and for good reason.  According to a poll released by the Program on International Policy Attitides, 93% of Americans believe countries part of international trade agreements, such as CAFTA, should be "required to maintain minimum standards for working conditions.  The same poll shows that 65% of Americans would support CAFTA if we endorced health and safety standards for Central American workers.  And 74% percent of Americans believe we have a "moral obligation" in international trade agreements to ensure the rights of workers in foreign ountries we trade with.

The article conveniently omits just how bad the situation is for Central American Workers.  The Republican Party has shown little commitment to improve labor conditions abroad, specifically in Central America.  The president's 2006 Budget requested only $12 million for the Department of Labor's Bureau of International Labor Affairs.  Between 2003 and 2004, funding to help protections for worker health and safety in Central America dropped by 43 percent.  It should be no surprise that just last week an American Appeals Court allowed a lawsuit to go forward under the federal Alien Tort Act (ATA) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA).  

The case linked above illustrates the just how deplorable worker rights are in CAFTA nations like Guatemala, where state sponsored torture and private mercenaries threatening the lives of union leaders while "negotiating" with them at gun-point while threatening thier lives is par for the course.  What makes anyone think the half-hearted Republican gestures toward ensuring labor rights will amount to anything substantial?

The editorial goes on to gloss over the Latin American protests as if they are conducted by a few people on the street holidng signs and chanting.  We are talking about massive protests that have actually turned violent; authorities have fired on the protesters, resulting in deaths.  In Guatemala, one protester was shot in the head and almost a dozen others were injured. The piece talks about the Central American nations being "democratically elected," yet fails to note that Bolivia's President literally fled the country and offered (and later withdrew) his resignation as hundreds of thousands of protesters flocked to the streets and shut the country down in opposition to its corporatist policies.    

The editorial concludes by laying its partisan cards on the table while asking a question for which they fail to provide a suitable answer for throughout the course of the piece, "How can Democrats who care about workers possibly vote against this?"

To be sure, the vast majority of Democrats oppose this bill.  As of Congress Daily's last report, only five have publicly supported the legislation.  But if it was only Democrats that opposed to bill, it would have no problem easily passing through the House when it comes to a vote later this week.  The fact is, the opposition is very bi-partisan in nature.  Over 20% of Republicans that have committed one way or the other on CAFTA oppose the legislation as well.  This is no small feat when you consider the immense amount of pressure the Republican Party puts on its members to stay in line.  During the Medicare vote, GOP leaders threatened to withdraw support from Congressman Nick Smith's son, who was running to replace his father several months later, if he failed to support the pending bill.  One Republican lawmaker actually hid in the Democratic cloak-room because the pressure was so great from his own leadership.

The real question for Ohio legislators is, "With all the job loss our state has suffered in the past decade, how can any of them actually support the Central American Free Trade Agreement?"