Joe Lieberman's $387,000 "Petty Cash" Problem
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.
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.
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.
tim,
Still shilling Lamont's message off your own site? What's up with that? Have you been TOLD to do this? Or are you doing it on your own?
How is Mr 17 Pts Down doing today? And do you think that he will be effected by the horrendous and cowardly defacing of the Groton Submarine sign? Did you read about that tim? Some assheads went and splattered the sign with yellow paint, the color of cowardice, and then graffitied it with F---WAR. I hope tim, that you and your staff are keeping an eye out at your events for anyone who drives a vehicle with yellow paint splatter, or has clothes or shoes with yellow paint splatter and that you'll do the right thing and turn them into the NAVY immediately.
=================
Yes, we're ALL interested in campaign funding. It's time for Lamont to reveal where he's getting his bucks from.
Does the public know that they're about to be CARPET BOMBED with Lamont ads every half-hour until the campaign is over?
I hope he sends some pepto to every home, because the public is going to be SICK of him by election day.
So tell us tim, tell us the truth--without the usual distortions and lies we've come to expect--what overseas stocks and investments has Lamont made so he can come clean about his financial history.
Or is it that the wife is pulling the strings? Is Lamont, through her, getting the money? Wasn't she just SUED for swindling investors in Florida? Is Lamont getting the money she rooked out of those people? We hope not.
October 22, 2006 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard that some people are doing some heavy-duty investigating of Joe's finances and they are not connected to the Lamont campaign.
They are looking into Joe's DC property deals, his handling of the Manger estate and his very questionable ties to the far right.
Maybe there's nothing there and maybe there isn't. I bet Harold Bernstein could clear up a few questions.
October 22, 2006 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Freak: keep it up brother, I'm beginning to think you are a Lamont psy-op. Your comments have inspired me to canvass and phonebank for hours.
1) Your boy's money smells bad coming in and now going out. I doubt there is anything strictly illegal going on, but now there is the story of how Joe bought a 'volunteer' army and lost that election.
2) You really need to check yourself. Joe's wife has plenty to make noise about, but that would be out of bounds. So please apologize for your comments about Annie Lamont. When Joe defended the lying ad you like so much, he used the phrase made popular in the effort to damage Valerie Plame: 'fair game'. I think we can agree that wives are not fair game in this election.
3) I do not think you to need instruct an ex-Marine on how to feel and react to vandalism of a sub base.
October 22, 2006 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink