Braddock's Campaign Disclosures under Ethics Investigation

[surepip]

Good old Georgia politics.

 

The District 19 Legislative Seat is in the spotlight again. Must be some sort of a hex placed on any Republicans running for this seat. It seems all end up on a first name basis with the Georgia Ethics Commission.

 

Braddock's Campaign Disclosures filed after the August run-off are under investigation by the State Ethics Commission

 

Paulding.com news has a story on this from last night on the Fastread page.

 

And here is a link:

Ethics Investigation

 

 

 

 

Pubby's News Link

P.com news

 

The investigation is centered on all of the Braddock mailers that went out July and August. Neither the printing costs, addressing costs or mailing costs were reported as in-kind donations by her company who printed and mailed them, AND if reported, the dollar amount would far exceed the maximum allowable in kind donation.

 

On Pubby's newscast Braddock tries to side step the issues by pleading ignorance of the campaign disclosure laws, but does admit the bulk mail stamp number on the mailings did belong to her company.

 

 

Upon reviewing the campaign disclosure information, I find it more than a bit strange the Braddock Fund Raiser/Campaign Kick-Off Party held the 4th of July weekend shows about $600 of costs listed on the expenditures filed, but her donations for all of July and August claim no campaign donations were collected during that entire 7 week time frame.

So she had a big BBQ, yet failed to collect ANY donations over $101 ?

 

And did not collect any donations over $101 from July 1st through August 17 ? Nothing ?

 

Come on Paulette.

File amended disclosures and show what your company paid out for the mailings [at industry values] and postage, as well as what donations you got during those 7 weeks.

[realtor]

So.

[vslade]

I want to know just one thing. Are they not any decent, honest people to run for office any more, or are they scared

they might become like the dishonest ones if they happen to be elected?????????????????????????

[Lady Raider]

Rut-Ruh

[mei lan]

So.

 

So there are rules to campaigns, and people need to follow them. I'd be saying the same thing about any candidate. It's either intentional wrongdoing or stupidity, and neither is good.

[mrshoward]

Any link to a trustworthy source ???

[lotstodo]

Any link to a trustworthy source ???

An official complaint was filed by George Anderson on September 10th, George calls himself a citizen activist. He makes it his personal mission to see to it that the State Ethics commission is aware of potential misdeeds and does it's job. Some folks call him a hero, some call him a busybody. He brought down Charles Walker, Bill Campbell, and Linda Shrenko, and sued to have Richardson's divorce proceeding unsealed. so he is both bipartisan and usually accurate.

 

I don't believe that an official investigation has been opened yet, just the complaint filed.

[feelip]

I agree with the poster that said it is either intentional or stupid, neither of which have any business making decisions that affect my life.

[WHITEY]

Appears to me that Paulette believes that House District 19 Can make up and play by their own rules, As so many have done in the Past.

 

Yes Mr Anderson is an Activist and usually is right on target with his compliants.

 

Paulette, If you are going to run for a office that legislates these rules, Then at least you should read them and understand them before you qualify and run for that elective office.

 

I wonder what her disclosures were when she was on the school board??? Hmmm

[Animal]

This action shouldn't surprise anyone about Paulette,seriously people. She was taught by the best,now she is a product of the dark side.

[WHITEY]

This action shouldn't surprise anyone about Paulette,seriously people. She was taught by the best,now she is a product of the dark side.

Yep she was right there with old Jerry the last election,And both lost by a landslide

[surepip]

Anderson used to be called a "Gadfly" by the Richardson camp for all his complaints filed against Richardson with the Ethics commission.

 

But Anderson is still there fighting for the voter's rights to know the financial details about the candidates.

 

Richardson and his camp are gone.

 

Speaks volumes.

[mrshoward]

I don't believe that an official investigation has been opened yet, just the complaint filed.

 

In other words, the title of this thread and the link provided are intentionally misleading.

[NewsJunky]

In other words, the title of this thread and the link provided are intentionally misleading.

 

Same cast of characters same message. They were never going to vote for her no matter what she did or did not do. They have a Democrat in this election and they are 100% behind him. I am not surprised that this guy is filing ethics charges he does it at the drop of a hat. He has been around for a long time. It is also a ploy often used to harm a candidate during an election.

[feelip]

In other words, the title of this thread and the link provided are intentionally misleading.

 

 

Gee whiz Ms. Howard. You guys are batting 1,000 aren't you? Looks like your team is changing from "CONservatives" to "CONvicts".

 

Explains why y'all are so angry all the time.

[feelip]

Same cast of characters same message. They were never going to vote for her no matter what she did or did not do. They have a Democrat in this election and they are 100% behind him. I am not surprised that this guy is filing ethics charges he does it at the drop of a hat. He has been around for a long time. It is also a ploy often used to harm a candidate during an election.

 

 

Drop of a hat? You are amazing. Have you even bothered to see his track record? Do you have a problem with someone that goes after crooked politicians and calls them out on ethics violations.

 

Are you saying you are okay with having a crook in office as long as they spew the sheeze you like to hear?

[mrshoward]

Same cast of characters same message. They were never going to vote for her no matter what she did or did not do. They have a Democrat in this election and they are 100% behind him. I am not surprised that this guy is filing ethics charges he does it at the drop of a hat. He has been around for a long time. It is also a ploy often used to harm a candidate during an election.

 

I think most folks consider DISHONESTY and MISINFORMATION to be UNETHICAL.

[bball]

I agree with the poster that said it is either intentional or stupid, neither of which have any business making decisions that affect my life.

 

 

That's about right for her.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Ball

[feelip]

I think most folks consider DISHONESTY and MISINFORMATION to be UNETHICAL.

 

 

Apparently the Republicans don't consider anything unethical.

[Animal]

Ya know if she was doing the right thing there would be nothing to report. Where there is smoke theres fire.Imagine this is only the tip of the iceberg, wait more is comming it's the nature of the dark side.

[Cabe]

Any link to a trustworthy source ???

Apparently not.

 

In other words, the title of this thread and the link provided are intentionally misleading.

Exactly. WTH is GA Politico anyway? (other than a liberal blog?)

[gpatt0n]

Ya know if she was doing the right thing there would be nothing to report. Where there is smoke theres fire.Imagine this is only the tip of the iceberg, wait more is comming it's the nature of the dark side.

 

Animal:

 

I know the story I did was fair to Ms. Braddock. I was actually worried that I would be cited for siding for her in it because it showed and displayed her three mailers, including the one with Sarah Palin, quite prominently (like an ad, almost).

 

I certainly didn't insinuate that she had made an ethical violation and given I have an audio recording, I am certain of my accuracy.

 

Beyond that, she does not deny sending the mailers and Mr. Anderson can't be wrong that the costs of those mailers were not disclosed in the report.

 

Mrs. Braddock's assertion that a candidates personal resources can be used is generally understood when it comes to the value of the use of a personal car (most candidates use their personal cars and don't report that expense against their campaign. ).

 

So, it may be perfectly legal for her to use her direct mail mailing outfit to send the campaign mail ... and it seems wrong only because it is pretty rare for direct mail company owners to run for office.

 

Personally, I do think that if I were running for office (and given the similarity of Pcom and advertising and her company and direct mail I think I would charge my campaign the regular cost of an ad on pcom - no special discounts - and raise money from others to purchase those ads. Accounting-wise, my discount would be the profit on the sale. I simply think it is a good idea, from a business standpoint, to handle (my own) campaign at arms length. This I would think would be wise, not just for ethics, but ancillary issues that might arise with taxes, campaign finance reporting and the admittedly other complex issues.

 

The other issues kind of raised by Anderson's report are, however, more interesting.

 

For instance, I've had two sources suggest that Randy Evans - he's a former chief of staff for both Newt Gingrich and Denny Hastert and, at least according to Anderson, presented arguments to the state ethics board on behalf of Ms. Braddock in the first complaint alleging her failure to report these direct mail expenditures. If Ms. Braddock had a benefactor of Mr. Evans stature, it would seem to me that rather than deny the man, she would embrace him.

 

Of course it is possible she doesn't know him or even of him. Rather, those efforts at the state level may be 'happening' for her because of her assertion she is a Tea Party Patriot 'candidate'.

 

The interest of AFP executive director Virginia Galloway in this race may explain a lot including the phone banks that were also promoting Ms. Braddock in the closing days of the runoff (did that appear on her disclosure or was it an independent act by an independent group that was not under the direction of the candidate and campaign and therefore driving through the loophole ripped in campaign laws by the SCOTUS earlier this year.)

 

Indeed, that single change makes it difficult to get a straight answer or even know if any answer is straight or crooked.

 

Bottom line, it is as Anderson, in my story, noted. Whether this was a violation of the ethics law is up to the ethics commission... and given the history of political influence on that ethics board, even that decision may be flawed.

 

pubby

[Cabe]

The interest of AFP executive director Virginia Galloway in this race may explain a lot including the phone banks that were also promoting Ms. Braddock in the closing days of the runoff (did that appear on her disclosure or was it an independent act by an independent group that was not under the direction of the candidate and campaign and therefore driving through the loophole ripped in campaign laws by the SCOTUS earlier this year.)

I happen to know that volunteers were making a lot of calls for Mrs. Braddock. I'm unaware of Mrs. Galloway's involvement, or why you (and others) continually feel the need to draw her in.

 

 

 

Bottom line, it is as Anderson, in my story, noted. Whether this was a violation of the ethics law is up to the ethics commission... and given the history of political influence on that ethics board, even that decision may be flawed.

So, the outcome doesn't really matter, does it?

[feelip]

So why is it that it is ALWAYS a Republican with questionable ethics? Could it be that people like Roy Barnes and Will Avery are ethical people? I think so.

[NewsJunky]

So why is it that it is ALWAYS a Republican with questionable ethics? Could it be that people like Roy Barnes and Will Avery are ethical people? I think so.

 

You have got to be kidding! How about the Governor of Obama's home state who tried to sell Obama's Senate seat. How about Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters? How about Sen. Charles Walker, isn't he still in jail? Was Barnes associated with him in any way? I could go on but I think I answered your question.

 

I forgot about Democratic U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop awarding Scholarships to his close family members. Link to story:http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia_elections_news/2010/09/17/sanford-bishop-blames-scholarship-distraction-on-gop-rival/

[surepip]

Anderson has always been non-partisan, although he definitely has filed a large number of complaints concerning the 19th district seat. Richardson was a favorite target.

 

The issue at hand is Braddock's Campaign Disclosures leave out more information than Deal's tax returns.

 

A Post Commissioner mailing to the registered voters of a postcard is more than $4000. Logic would show a mailing for the district 19 seat would be twice as many [we have 4 posts and 2 legislative seats] so a ballpark of $8000.

 

3 [or was it 4 ?] mailings would be $24,000+, yet there is nothing reported. And now Paulette is telling Pubby she thought she was allowed to give herself all the free stuff she wanted to ?!?! I seem to remember getting the one personnally addressed to us, a copy of a handwritten note with a regular stamp on it, along with 3 color slick larger bulk stamp mailings

 

Isn't she responsible to be 100% abreast of the campaign disclosure laws and expected to follow them ?

 

Isn't she responsible to know how much she can provide from her company as "in-kind" donations and cash, and when it has to be shown as a loan ? And aren't the voters allowed to make their decision based on the information the law clearly states she has to provide ? Not to mention her last disclosure was due on august 6th, before the run-off, [and Stout files his on time] yet hers was not filed until the 17th.

 

And she is using her 20+ years of business management background on her platform as a qualification to occupy this seat?

 

Then there is the 4th of July Campaign Party/Fundraiser BBQ, which she does show expenses of almost $600 for. Yet, she did not collect a single donation of over $101 from July 1st through August 17th ? I just am a bit incredulous about that. So her supporters came to the BBQ, had a fine meal, and NO ONE made a donation of more than $101 ? Her disclosure clearly states no donations were received.

 

This just does not add up.

 

But then again, she is running as a Tea Party Conservative.

Yet in her 8 years on the BOE she voted for 8 consecutive tax increases and 2 Bond referendums. I guess that all makes perfect sense.

[Cabe]

Anderson has always been non-partisan, although he definitely has filed a large number of complaints concerning the 19th district seat. Richardson was a favorite target.

 

The issue at hand is Braddock's Campaign Disclosures leave out more information than Deal's tax returns.

 

A Post Commissioner mailing to the registered voters of a postcard is more than $4000. Logic would show a mailing for the district 19 seat would be twice as many [we have 4 posts and 2 legislative seats] so a ballpark of $8000.

 

3 [or was it 4 ?] mailings would be $24,000+, yet there is nothing reported. And now Paulette is telling Pubby she thought she was allowed to give herself all the free stuff she wanted to ?!?! I seem to remember getting the one personnally addressed to us, a copy of a handwritten note with a regular stamp on it, along with 3 color slick larger bulk stamp mailings

 

Isn't she responsible to be 100% abreast of the campaign disclosure laws and expected to follow them ?

 

Isn't she responsible to know how much she can provide from her company as "in-kind" donations and cash, and when it has to be shown as a loan ? And aren't the voters allowed to make their decision based on the information the law clearly states she has to provide ? Not to mention her last disclosure was due on august 6th, before the run-off, [and Stout files his on time] yet hers was not filed until the 17th.

 

And she is using her 20+ years of business management background on her platform as a qualification to occupy this seat?

 

Then there is the 4th of July Campaign Party/Fundraiser BBQ, which she does show expenses of almost $600 for. Yet, she did not collect a single donation of over $101 from July 1st through August 17th ? I just am a bit incredulous about that. So her supporters came to the BBQ, had a fine meal, and NO ONE made a donation of more than $101 ? Her disclosure clearly states no donations were received.

 

This just does not add up.

 

But then again, she is running as a Tea Party Conservative.

Yet in her 8 years on the BOE she voted for 8 consecutive tax increases and 2 Bond referendums. I guess that all makes perfect sense.

 

You really should get your facts straight before you type this utter bullcheeze! I don't even have time to sift through all the lies you've listed.

[mrshoward]

You really should get your facts straight before you type this utter bullcheeze! I don't even have time to sift through all the lies you've listed.

 

Ironic that a thread about ethics is filled with such FALSE and DISHONEST claims...

[surepip]

Ironic that a thread about ethics is filled with such FALSE and DISHONEST claims...

 

No false or dishonest claims.

 

What is false and dishonest other than Paulette failing to disclose the thousands and thousands of dollars worth of printing and mailing she admits her company did for her campaign. There is a maximum ceiling on the amounts of in-kind donations, and she ignored all of it, even putting down $1, let along the thousands it cost.

 

And no, absolutely NO campaign donations collected from July 1 through August 17 ? None ???

 

 

 

Now her attendance, tardiness, and voting record for her 8 years on the BOE has been thoroughly researched and will be available soon.

 

Too bad she did not volunteer the information herself. Would have saved several people a lot of time and effort.

 

Like it or not, she voted for every tax increase, and every bond.

 

No Tea Party Conservative there. Or if she is, it is in name only.

 

 

There is a boneyard hiding in that closet. Animal is right....this is just the tip of the iceberg.

[mrshoward]

Ethics Investigation

 

^^^ FALSE and DISHONEST.

[lotstodo]

Animal:

 

I know the story I did was fair to Ms. Braddock. I was actually worried that I would be cited for siding for her in it because it showed and displayed her three mailers, including the one with Sarah Palin, quite prominently (like an ad, almost).

 

I certainly didn't insinuate that she had made an ethical violation and given I have an audio recording, I am certain of my accuracy.

 

Beyond that, she does not deny sending the mailers and Mr. Anderson can't be wrong that the costs of those mailers were not disclosed in the report.

 

Mrs. Braddock's assertion that a candidates personal resources can be used is generally understood when it comes to the value of the use of a personal car (most candidates use their personal cars and don't report that expense against their campaign. ).

 

So, it may be perfectly legal for her to use her direct mail mailing outfit to send the campaign mail ... and it seems wrong only because it is pretty rare for direct mail company owners to run for office.

 

Personally, I do think that if I were running for office (and given the similarity of Pcom and advertising and her company and direct mail I think I would charge my campaign the regular cost of an ad on pcom - no special discounts - and raise money from others to purchase those ads. Accounting-wise, my discount would be the profit on the sale. I simply think it is a good idea, from a business standpoint, to handle (my own) campaign at arms length. This I would think would be wise, not just for ethics, but ancillary issues that might arise with taxes, campaign finance reporting and the admittedly other complex issues.

 

The other issues kind of raised by Anderson's report are, however, more interesting.

 

For instance, I've had two sources suggest that Randy Evans - he's a former chief of staff for both Newt Gingrich and Denny Hastert and, at least according to Anderson, presented arguments to the state ethics board on behalf of Ms. Braddock in the first complaint alleging her failure to report these direct mail expenditures. If Ms. Braddock had a benefactor of Mr. Evans stature, it would seem to me that rather than deny the man, she would embrace him.

 

Of course it is possible she doesn't know him or even of him. Rather, those efforts at the state level may be 'happening' for her because of her assertion she is a Tea Party Patriot 'candidate'.

 

The interest of AFP executive director Virginia Galloway in this race may explain a lot including the phone banks that were also promoting Ms. Braddock in the closing days of the runoff (did that appear on her disclosure or was it an independent act by an independent group that was not under the direction of the candidate and campaign and therefore driving through the loophole ripped in campaign laws by the SCOTUS earlier this year.)

 

Indeed, that single change makes it difficult to get a straight answer or even know if any answer is straight or crooked.

 

Bottom line, it is as Anderson, in my story, noted. Whether this was a violation of the ethics law is up to the ethics commission... and given the history of political influence on that ethics board, even that decision may be flawed.

 

pubby

Pubby, she did report a $9000 loan from her business, but apparently not the in kind contribution. This indicates to me that she was either a dumba$$ of an accountant or that she was intentionally hiding the in kind contribution, not relying upon the recent SCOTUS decision as her out. It is certainly worth a look by the so called ethics commission. The problem is that they meet when they want and review what they want, and report what they want when they want, and bottom line they aren't going to do anything prior to the election.

[bball]

This indicates to me that she was either a dumba$$

 

 

Safe bet is this.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Ball

[surepip]

Come on.

 

This is the lady we want representing us under the Gold Dome ?

 

She does not understand the basic principals and rules of campaign donations ?

 

She does not know or understand the ceiling limits on "in kind" donations ?

 

She does not know or understand whose donations she has to report ?

 

Placing information on her website stating she only has to report donations of over $200, which became irrelevant because she reported absolutely ZERO donations for all of July and August even though she held a $600+ cost BBQ on 4th of July weekend and did not collect a single donation of $101 or more ?

 

Come on, this is BS ?

 

Voting records for Braddock's 8 years on the BOE will be coming on line soon. It has been an arduous task to assemble the information on her 8 years of consectutive votes for tax increases for the BOE under her tenure. Not to mention the 2 Bond Votes.

 

Some of Paulette's posse like to throw out FALSE and DISHONEST comments, but none can dispute her voting record. If you want to claim FALSE and DISHONEST, then post her voting record. I have seen the totals from the handwritten notes gathered on line. It takes time to transfer to a protocol to post, but like the old ugly ANIMAL likes to say, "it is coming, just give it some time".

 

Don't blow smoke up my butt. I knew how she voted at the time, and I look forward to her voting record as a NON-Conservative BOE member. And I KNOW she will be a Legislator who will do what the "Leadership" wants, regardless of how it effects her constituents. As her predecessors have done for 15 years.

 

We need a new group staking out Paulding's rights under the Gold Dome. We have had too many years of the leadership setting the standard that we have to live by with no representation for us, the citizens, voters and tax payers of Paulding.

 

Want more of the same ? Vote for Paulette.

 

Want a breathe of fresh air to work to help Paulding, then vote for Will.

 

Forget partisan politics, and look at what is best for us, the taxpaying voters of Paulding.

[misterpolitics]

Look, this is a legit complaint. Fact is that Paulette did not disclose what could easily exceed $5000 in mailers, which have been proven to have been mailed from her business. Is it illegal to use her own business, of course not. I'd do it too! But she MUST disclose the fact that she used it, plain and simple. There are a few forms this could come in: a loan from her business, her campaign paying in full, her loaning herself money to pay her business, etc. However, according to Georgia State law, a business and an individual are two different things, and she would need to disclose who is doing her work. Things do not come free in this world, and it's not right for someone to do what she did. Do I think she did it on purpose, probably not, no. But she needs to tell us all where she got the money.

 

For folks like Madea &cetera, take a look at the complaint, and then price everything out. I did. It is 100% legitimate to question what is going on here, because something smells fishy.

[feelip]

You have got to be kidding! How about the Governor of Obama's home state who tried to sell Obama's Senate seat. How about Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters? How about Sen. Charles Walker, isn't he still in jail? Was Barnes associated with him in any way? I could go on but I think I answered your question.

 

I forgot about Democratic U.S. Rep. Sanford Bishop awarding Scholarships to his close family members. Link to story:http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia_elections_news/2010/09/17/sanford-bishop-blames-scholarship-distraction-on-gop-rival/

 

 

I am concerned only with local politics. State and county to be specific. I will be backing Johnny Isakson because I know him to be a good man.

 

You keep trying to make a connection between O-bammy and the local Democrats.

 

You guys down at the Paulding Festering Pool of Corruption really need to shock and backwash. You guys keep churning out pure sheeze.

[surepip]

I am concerned only with local politics. State and county to be specific. I will be backing Johnny Isakson because I know him to be a good man.

 

You keep trying to make a connection between O-bammy and the local Democrats.

 

You guys down at the Paulding Festering Pool of Corruption really need to shock and backwash. You guys keep churning out pure sheeze.

 

Time to add more chlorine to the pool? Or skip that and just dump in the acid and start all over with balancing the chemicals ?

[Cabe]

Well, I see this is no longer worthy of discussion. Doesn't take y'all long does it.

[feelip]

Well, I see this is no longer worthy of discussion. Doesn't take y'all long does it.

 

 

That's right Madea, place the blame on those pointing out the corruption instead of those being corrupt.

 

I hear rumors that there might be a Coup D' Etat down at the Paulding GOP.

[NewsJunky]

Well, I see this is no longer worthy of discussion. Doesn't take y'all long does it.

 

You are correct! It always goes to the same place. I am not likely to forget that again. I tend to forget how disrespectful some folks can get just because you don't agree with them. I came back to discuss the election. Well we can see how that turned out.

[feelip]

You are correct! It always goes to the same place. I am not likely to forget that again. I tend to forget how disrespectful some folks can get just because you don't agree with them. I came back to discuss the election. Well we can see how that turned out.

 

 

No. You came back to get some gouges in at Will Avery and Roy Barnes by trying to link them to Obama. And at the same time YOU REFUSE to admit that the Paulding GOP is cranking out one questionable candidate after another.

Edited September 23, 2010 by otis
removal of unneeded remark