Could you or I get a $500,000 loan the way Ron Sparks did, with his income and assets? We could not, according to David Kemp, president of a financial consulting firm that, among other things, trains lenders.
At a minimum, a typical lender would require a salary ranging between $144,000 and $156,000, as well as $625,000 in debt-free real estate as collateral, to make a $500,000 loan, said Kemp, a former executive with Citicorp North America and commercial lender for two Southern banks.
Sparks earns a $79,026 salary as state agriculture commissioner. His Montgomery home is assessed at around $240,000, although Sparks has said that its actual value is between $300,000 and $350,000. He listed no other income or real estate holdings in his latest filing with the Alabama Ethics Commission and has said there were no co-signors on his loan.
"Just from a pure banking perspective, it wouldn't make much sense from that set of facts that anybody at a bank would make that kind of loan," Kemp said.
Even if his home is debt free, Sparks would need another $300,000 of property as collateral for a loan of this size, and another $70,000 or so of annual income -- under the rules that would apply to a normal bank customer.
Why can a candidate for governor get a loan for his campaign an average person would never be approved for?
Anyone who cares about good government can see this is problematic - this loan comprises 40% of the money Sparks reported in January. Without it his campaign would have been dead in the water. How did this miracle occur? Democratic voters need to know whether this is a normal loan or a favor from some secret Santa -- who may expect return favors in the future.
Once again, if there is more income, Ron Sparks should report it and if he used other, undisclosed property as collateral, it is in his best interest to make that public. Sunlight and disclosure are the only way to quash the rumors and speculation.
It appears to be Sparks effort to seek a break from repeated questions about that $500,000 personal loan to his campaign. If you have time to kill, decide for yourself. Check Davis votes on energy and finance and anything else on the VoteSmart page here.
Looks like the bright, shiny object technique failed -- this is from today's Birmingham News:
Sparks said his reports are accurate, although he might have been better off reporting the personal loan to his campaign as a bank loan. But even if he had done that, voters apparently still wouldn't get a sense of Sparks' finances from looking at his ethics forms.
True, ethics forms require officials to list their income and assets only in broad ranges. But in our view, it's a problem if they are so vague they can fail to reflect half a million dollars in wealth.
I suppose it's possible that Sparks' ethics forms are accurate, but I seriously doubt it in the case of the 2008 form.
From 2002 through 2007, Sparks' Statement of Economic Interests (ethics form) lists income of "less than $1,000" from a checking account and "$1,000 to $10,000" from a mutual fund or savings account. He also lists debt of "Less than $25,000" from "Banks (include Credit Cards)" for those years. The strange thing is that his most recent form, 2008, lists neither outside income nor debt in any amount. 2008 was the first year Sparks used the online form, so he could easily have made an error with the new form, but in light of the $500,000 loan, it's hard to believe he actually had NO other income in 2008, let alone NO debt whatsoever, especially since Sparks recently stated he owes $60,000.
We won't get a picture of Sparks' 2009 finances until late April, at earliest, when his 2009 disclosure is due. Unfortunately, the $500,000 loan appears to have been nicely timed (Jan. 8, 2010) so Sparks isn't obliged to report that on his ethics form until April, 2011.So much for transparency. He should have correctly reported it on his campaign finance forms, though.
I'm frankly surprised Sparks hasn't corrected the 2008 ethics form or that state ethics watchdogs like the Mobile Press-Register or the Birmingham News haven't complained about it. It's almost certainly incorrect.
Who cares about the (large and boring) Republican gubernatorial field? All the excitement in Alabama's gubernatorial race comes from Democrats Artur Davis and Ron Sparks. Chuck Dean of the Birmingham News writes ...
On Saturday, Sparks denied that he had ever implied the money came from his own personal accounts. Reminded of his previous statements, Sparks finally said he couldn't recall exactly what he had said earlier but said the letter should put the matter to rest.
It didn't.
Davis, who appeared along with Sparks and six Republicans running for governor at a Saturday forum in Hoover, said the letter does nothing to explain how Sparks qualified for the loan.
...
"How many people in this state making seventy thousand dollars a year, which is roughly his salary, who have no assets, whose home is valued at two hundred and some thousand dollars, can get a five hundred thousand loan with no collateral and no co-signers? If banks are that generous, it would be news to a lot of hard-working families in Alabama."
The only mention of the Republican candidates was the fact that six of them were present at the forum.
Remember the Meadowcraft plant in Wadley, Alabama that was forced into bankrupcy -- despite a backlog of business -- because Wells Fargo wouldn't give them a loan to cover operational costs? Obviously, Meadowcraft should have tried doing business with River Bank in Montgomery instead of Wells Fargo.
"This is the honest truth. I borrowed the money from River Bank and put it in my campaign," Sparks said in an interview Friday.
It's not unusual for candidates in to make personal loans or get bank loans for a statewide campaign.
Dicie Smith, senior vice president for River Bank & Trust in Montgomery, confirmed Sparks' statements in a phone interview. She also provided a letter saying Sparks had a long relationship with the bank and met its loan criteria, including credit history and ability to repay.
There's nothing here that couldn't (and shouldn't) have been released three weeks ago. Think of the bad press Sparks would have avoided had he pre-empted this story by releasing full details when the question first arose. Instead, the campaign stonewalled and only admitted the money was a loan this week. Sparks had previously said:
"I have the assets, and my loan to the campaign makes that obvious. ... I have been very blessed in my life. Through hard work, saving and investing, I have the financial ability to make this loan to my campaign ..."
Which only made things worse, as it sounded like Sparks had the cash or liquid assets to loan half a million to his campaign, when nothing else in his public disclosures ever indicated that kind of wealth.
It wasn't until Tuesday morning, during an interview with Rick Journey, that Ron Sparks admitted the half million was a bank loan.
“I am a good credit risk… I have the ability to go to the bank and borrow money and put it in my campaign,” he said this morning on FOX6 News Good Day Alabama.
... and said:
... he was willing to release additional documentation to resolve the issue.
“I’ll do it as soon as we possibly can… I’ll tell my campaign… absolutely.”
"As soon as we possibly can" turned out to take three more days, just in time to catch the all important Friday news cycle. This campaign certainly doesn't do damage control in rapid response mode. There's one other point worth mentioning from the most recent story -- payback. It isn't clear if this is part of Sparks' statement or in response to a query.
Sparks said no one co-signed the loan with him, and he has not yet repaid the bank.
Well, of course he hasn't repaid the bank yet. His campaign needed the money and will continue to need the money right up until June 1. Ron Sparks is personally on the hook for half a million dollars and he has to hope he can raise that much to retire the debt after June 1. I wish he had taken my advice and also added something like, "I'm willing to mortgage my future for this campaign because I'm confident that we will prevail."
It would have fit nicely with the underdog image he should have been embracing all along.
Update: Below is a statement from Sparks' Democratic rival, Rep. Artur Davis.
Statement from Congressman Artur Davis:
I am not surprised that for two weeks, numerous reports have questioned how a man with no assets and a $79,000 salary manages to transfer $500,000 to his campaign. I find it curious that Sparks failed to disclose on his campaign finance report that the source of the $500,000 was a bank loan; I find it even more curious that instead of being straightforward with the press in the past several weeks, he was so vague and so evasive on this matter. But I think one question matters above all: how many Alabamians could obtain a half million dollar loan with no assets, a home that is half the value of the loan, and no reported investments or other large holdings? Ron Sparks may think his finances are his business, but when a half million dollars lands in your campaign account on one day, and another $300,000 lands there a few days later by way of large gambling interests and PACS, voters deserve to know every detail.This late Friday afternoon letter from his bank does not begin to answer these questions.
I will just point out that the traditional media may have been asking questions for two weeks, but folks at this blog and others started asking about the $500,000 virtually as soon as we got the year end report -- a good three weeks ago. Open and transparent campaigns lead to better government, something all of us should be demanding.
Ron Sparks released a statement Monday indicating that the surprising half million dollar loan he made to his gubernatorial campaign was secured through a personal loan.
"I am a good credit risk. I have the ability to borrow money to loan to my campaign and that is what I did."
On his year end campaign finance report, Sparks did not indicate the money came from a lender and his past financial statements have never indicated he was a wealthy man. Via the statement, Sparks also said that would be "the end of the matter."
Of course it wasn't, and Rick Journey asked him about it this morning on Good Day Alabama and at last he seemed willing to disclose the source of the money:
During this morning’s interview, Sparks stated he was willing to release additional documentation to resolve the issue.
“I’ll do it as soon as we possibly can… I’ll tell my campaign… absolutely.”
Finally, the Sparks campaign is going to put this thing to bed. If there's a simple, perfectly aboveboard answer to the $500,000 question, why on earth didn't they release the additional documentation 3 weeks ago and save themselves a lot of distraction and unfavorable buzz? This is simple stuff and a number of other candidates have done it in the past. The statement should look something like this.
"I borrowed $XXX from Y Bank (or Mr. Y, as the case may be) in order to lend it to my campaign. This is an indication of how confident I am that we will win this election."
End of story, campaign continues from here. About damned time!
Candidate for governor Ron Sparks comes across as a man who is getting very frustrated with calls for him to reveal those assets that allowed him to lend his campaign a half-million dollars when his state ethics filings show only modest means.
His campaign released a statement late Friday that said, in part: "I am a 57-year old man with very little debt. I own residential property and property in North Alabama. I pay my bills. I am a good credit risk. I have the ability to borrow money to loan to my campaign and that is what I did."
The statement went on: "This is the end of this matter. I refuse to be held to a standard other candidates are not required to meet."
...
Asked if the money for the loan came in any way from gambling interests or from gambling winnings, Sparks said, "I have the ability through my resources to do it, and I did it on my own with no gambling interests whatsoever."
The Advertiser also mentioned that Sparks previously told a "political blogger" (that's us) "I want people to know what I make." He also said he wanted people to know what he owned and what he owed.
We picked up all the available Statements of Economic Interests (SEI) for Ron Sparks at the Alabama Ethics Commission on Friday. There isn't much there. In fact, the only numerals Sparks had to enter on the forms are in the address and phone number fields.
From 2002 through 2007 Ron Sparks reported "other income information" (section 6)consisting of:
His Ag. Dept. salary of $50,000 - $150,000
AmSouth Mutual Fund -- $1000 -$10,000
AmSouth Checking -- Less than $1000
The information in section 6 for all years 2002 - 2007 is exactly the same. This form is from 2002, click to enlarge.
In 2008 Sparks filed online (click for image) and does not list any "other income" in section 6 of the form, just "Not Applicable." It doesn't appear that the reporting requirements have changed -- Bradley Byrne's 2008 form lists interest income of "less than $1000," for example. What happened to the mutual fund and the checking account?
From 2002 through 2007 Ron Sparks also reported "indebtedness information" (section 8) consisting of:
Banks (include Credit Cards) or "Less than $25,000."
The image below is secton 8 of Sparks' 2002 SEI -- the information is the same for 2002 - 2007. Click to enlarge.
Sparks' 2008 form lists no indebtedness whatsoever. Note there is no requirement to list debt "associated with the (homestead) home in which you live." All of section 8 is marked "Not Applicable." Did Ron Sparks swear off credit cards in 2008?
Through 2007, Sparks only listed income from a mutual fund, a checking account and his salary. Now, let's say his mutual fund was earning 5% (for some of the years 2002 - 2007 it should have earned considerably more, but let's be conservative) and that it returned him $10,000 -- the maximum income level he marked -- the principle would have been $200,000.
That isn't enough to cover the $500K loan. Probably not even enough to cover it in conjunction with a mortgage on his home (worth approx. $240,000.) And remember, the mutual fund income isn't even listed for the most recent year.
Where did the money come from? I'm sure Ron Sparks is tired of being asked, but the $500,000 question isn't likely to go away unanswered.
If Mr. Sparks has had a recent financial windfall, then why not say so? If he’s that good at saving and investing, he should be touting his financial abilities to voters.
...
His evasions raise serious questions about his integrity and credibility. If he doesn’t see that as a problem, voters certainly should.
Some candidates may be independently wealthy enough to do that. Others may resort to loans when contributions are too slow to wage a competitive campaign.
The Mobile Register reported Tuesday that Sparks refused to tell the paper where the $500,000 came from, a credible question given that he listed no assets aside from his Montgomery home and no income other than his $79,026 salary as state agriculture commissioner.
Sparks didn't help himself in his response to the questions by pointing fingers at other candidates (though not Davis) who have loaned money to their campaigns, too. Certainly, other candidates' financial disclosures need to be scrutinized just like Sparks' disclosures. But that doesn't change the bottom line, which is that Sparks' ethics disclosures don't match what is ringing up at his campaign's cash register.
He needs to amend either his campaign reports or his financial reports so voters can better divine the source of the money. It's the honest thing to do.
Back in November, Ron Sparks told LiA he wished he could give the Alabama Ethics Commission his W-2 forms to show how open his finances are. Perhaps if these newspaper editorial boards made a request, Sparks would share his W-2s to demonstrate that his finances are completely above board.
Sparks actually loaned his campaign $500k from his personal funds (in other words, the loan was real and the money is in his account, rather than a figment placed on the report)
Sparks' self-reporting of his assets leads us to believe that he received this $500k recently from some source.
Then it follows that Ron Sparks will have to pay income taxes on that $500K as a gift, although it wouldn't show up until he files 2009 taxes, assuming the gift was made before Jan. 1, 2010.
Also, if he continues to claim that he had the $500k from his own investments, that income should have been reported to the IRS in the past. Someone should ask him to make good on his wish to release his tax documents -- the only way to definitively clear the air. And if the records show that Ron Sparks has amassed $500K by regular saving and careful investment over his lifetime, well that would make the Artur Davis campaign look a little foolish, wouldn't it?
Win, win situation for Sparks, if the money really does reflect a lifetime of careful financial management.
... to Ron Sparks' gubernatorial campaign. Over the weekend George Altman had a front page piece in the Mobile Press-Register about Ron Sparks' $500,000 personal loan to his campaign. The loan stands out in the 2010 gubernatorial field because, based on Sparks' Statement of Economic Interests, it isn't apparent that he had financial assets of anything like half a million dollars. Sparks responded to Altman's question via email:
"I have disclosed what is required, and until other candidates are willing to go beyond financial disclosure requirements, we should not be held to a different standard."
Strictly speaking, Sparks may not be required to disclose how he could afford to lend his campaign so much money -- Alabama disclosure requirements are nothing like as stringent as those for federal candidates -- but it would be politically smart to do so. Stonewalling reporters as to the source of the $500,000 makes it look like there's something to hide (Was there really a suitcase full of money on the doorstep? Or is the half mil illusory, à la Kay Ivey?) and the longer the speculation lingers, the worse Sparks looks.
Full disclosure would also be in line with Sparks' own stated desire to be as open as possible. He addressed ethics and transparency, specifically mentioning financial disclosure, when we interviewed him in November:
Starting at about 50 seconds, emphasis mine:
The other day I signed the chart when it talked about becoming governor, about your family. I even wanted to give them my W-2 form. I want people to know what I own; what I, what I owe; what I make. I think people would be shocked if they examine some other folks. I really do.
Sparks has gone from, "I want people to know what I own, ... what I owe, what I make" in November to, "I'm not disclosing where I got the $500,000" last week. That's a remarkable change in outlook in just 90 days and it should absolutely raise flags. Here is one of the cardinal rules of public life: If there's nothing to hide, don't look like you're trying to hide something.
Sparks stonewalled Altman on another point as well, refusing to give more information on $107,702.02 identified on the 2009 year end report as "transfer from another account." Since Sparks finally filed a termination report on his Ag Commissioner account Feb. 9 (one day after this reminder) we can see a matching $107,702.02 expenditure listed as "Transfer to Governor Account." The dates match.
That's the same kind of transfer Rep. Artur Davis made from his Congressional account -- which Sparks has repeatedly criticized. That transaction was completely aboveboard and there is absolutely no reason for Sparks to brush off the reporter who questioned it -- the truth is the right answer! This is downright counterproductive, since it gives the appearance something is being concealed and encourages the press to keep digging.
Ron Sparks needs to make a complete statement on the $500,000 and shut down this speculation about the source of his funding. The sooner the better.
Why is this more remarkable than Tim James loaning his campaign $2 million or Kay Ivey loaning hers $1.5 million or even Robert Bentley loaning his $777,000? (Summary of campaign reports here.) Because those folks are all wealthy -- heck, they're Republicans. They all have personal wealth and are known to have it.Ron Sparks, on the other hand, has always portrayed himself as an average guy from very modest beginnings -- worked at a sock mill in Ft. Payne, joined the Coast Guard, been a public servant, etc. -- so how is it that he can suddenly afford to fling half a million dollars into his campaign?
The Sparks campaign would not say where the agriculture commissioner, who earns a $79,026 annual salary, got the money for the loan or why he previously reported no assets. In an e-mail response, Sparks pointed out that most other gubernatorial candidates also made personal loans to their campaigns.
"I have the assets, and my loan to the campaign makes that obvious," the statement said. "I have disclosed what is required, and until other candidates are willing to go beyond financial disclosure requirements, we should not be held to a different standard."
How does "no assets" morph into an extra half million to sink into a political campaign, which is usually money down a rat hole? Either Sparks has been exaggerating his "common man" image for some time -- hard to see since he reported no real estate holdings, no income from investments, no interest from bank accounts -- or he suddenly came into some big money.
Perhaps he mortgaged his home, valued at $237,900, for half a million and sunk that into his campaign? What a story that would be! Remember when John Kerry mortgaged his family home to keep his presidential hopes alive? Or is this new found wealth more in the nature of "found a suitcase full of money on the doorstep." As other Alabama pols have done, maybe Sparks got lucky on the bingo machines.
Tim James (R) finished 2009 with more cash on hand than any other candidate -- on either side. That's partly because he probably has more personal money than any candidate on either side -- he loaned his campaign $2 million in 2008 -- but he also has good friends with deep pockets. But don't worry ... the generosity of those deep pocketed friends is all on behalf of good government.
James reported raising $2.06 million in 2009 ($2.12 if you include in-kind contributions) and although he had 935 contributions from individuals, 59% of that haul came from just 3 people.
Contributions:
Warren J. Williamson, Jr. - 6/4/09, $50,000 Guice Slawson - 6/12/09, $250,000 John M. McGinnis - 9/30/09, $250,000
James reported approximately 935 contributions from individuals totalling around $1.24 million or roughly $1332 per contribution, on average. If you just take out the $550,000 those three men contributed, the average contribution drops to $745. Pretty stunning.
The loans are important too, because that extra $700,000 that conveniently showed up in the last 2 days of 2009 allowed James to claim the title of most cash on hand of anyone in the race, and by a comfortable margin. He reported $2.62 million, besting his nearest GOP rival, Bradley Byrne, by $800,000. James had personally loaned his campaign $2 million in 2008, with considerable fanfare, so he needed to show a big advantage over Byrne and the loans allowed him to do just that.
As a big fan of small "d" democracy, I much prefer to see campaigns with many smaller donors and advocate for strict caps on contributions if not actual public financing of elections. Since Mr. James was doing a press conference in Huntsville yesterday, I decided to attend in hopes of getting his view on this small group of donors who are so obviously instrumental to his campaign. Video below the fold.
2009 was a great fundraising year for Terri Sewell. She has led the field all year long and, although Earl Hilliard Jr. outraised her slightly in the 4th quarter, Sewell maintains a significant lead in cash on hand. She reported contributions of right at $100K in the last 3 months of 2009, expenses of $79K (a new and much improved website, among other things) and a whopping $339K cash on hand. From the campaign:
Democrat Terri A. Sewell, candidate for Artur Davis’ open seat in Congress, continues her historic run for Congress reporting raising over $500,000 in 2009. Terri Sewell continues to break every fundraising record for her race and has raised more in an off year than any women ever to run for the House of Representatives in Alabama.For 2009, Sewell reported contributions from over 1,000 people with 97% of those contributions coming from individuals.
A review of the 2009 Year End reports for the race show that Sewell has raised more than all the other candidates in the field combined and currently has a better than 3.5 to 1 COH advantage over her opponents combined totals.
“I am honored by the incredible amount of support we have received from people of all walks of life. It is humbling to see how excited these folks and many others across the district are about our campaign and the opportunity that we have to make a difference for the families of West Alabama by working with President Obama to create new jobs, improve healthcare, and reinvest in our schools.”
(Corporations are not people! - promoted by mooncat)
No! ... Not the Confederate States of America but the Corporate States of America. After watching and reading KO's comments on MSNBC about the endgame for the Supreme Courts ruling on Corporate / Campaign finance, I am beginning to believe that the "end is nigh!"
Take a look and judge for yourselves ... the so-called "Socialist America" espoused and feared by the neo-cons and Republicans that President Obama was trying to inflict on this country will be NOTHING compared to the absolute destruction of our constitution and individual rights in the coming years ... 2012, 2014, 2016 and then the new year 1 ACT ... After Corporate Takeover. It was nice while it lasted.
"Our Corporation, which is Everywhere, Hallowed be thy Name, Thy Stockholders come. Thou bidding be done, at Home as it is in the Board Room. Give us this day our daily ration, and ignore our needs as we ignore the needs of the World. But forgive us not when we have failed to serve You. And lead us into temptation, and bribery and degradation for thine is the Corporation, the Money, and the Power. AMEN"
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag and to the Corporate States of America and to the Industries for which it stands one Business under Greed, indivisible, with liberty and justice for none."
The test of a good law is whether it will hold up in an absurd situation, this ruling does NOT even pass the smell test.
Ex. Under the NEW RULES: You pay a corporation, like Waste Management, to pick up your garbage on a weekly basis. Three weeks go by and your garbage can is over flowing. You call your County Commissioner and ask him for help. He replies, "Don't bother me!" You say "I voted for you!" He says, "Yes, but Waste Management Owns me!"
You file suit, The Circuit Judge dismisses the case out of hand, "Waste Management Owns me!" says the judge.
You appeal to the Court of Appeals, but Waste Management bought 2 of the 3 judges, you lose.
You take it to the Attorney General and Alabama Supreme Court. The AG says I work for Waste Management and 5 of 9 justices on the court are also paid by Waste Management. You lose ... again!!
AND WE ARE JUST NOW GETTING OUT OF ALABAMA COURTS!!!
This is not a joke, this is the Orwellian and Huxley New Worlds approaching at warp speed where the citizens ONLY job will be to feed the corporations ... with NO redress and NO alternative ... save for death! Because the Corporations will control the ENTIRE POLITICAL PROCESS.
I see doom and gloom in Artur Davis future, how does a popular politician compete with the money a corporation can funnel into their hand picked candidates coffers.
It will take the corporations just 3 more years to own the Presidency and less than 6 years to TOTALLY control Congress and the Senate.
The year 2000 marked the second straight decade when Republicans headed into the process better prepared and, regardless of how dirty Democrats accused the GOP of playing, ultimately got the best of their opposition. It's something Democrats are determined to not let happen again. Heading into the 2010 Census, Democrats have rebuilt their redistricting machine to match the Republican one.
"This is really the first time that both congressional and state legislative redistricting are being done under one umbrella," says Bill Burke, executive director of Foundation for the Future, a 527 formed back in 2004 to plan next year's Democratic redistricting effort. "In the past, Democrats got started late, were underfunded and most of the interest here in D.C. was with the congressional level, as opposed to what was happening in state legislatures.
Republicans have been touting redistricting as their best hope to regain a majority in Congress. If they see modest congressional gains in 2010 -- and coming off back to back Democratic wave elections, it would be surprising if Republicans don't see some modest gains -- and win back some governorships and state legislatures there's a potential to take another 25-30 seats in 2012 solely on the basis of redistricting.
Two Georgia insurance companies with the same boss funneled $120,000 — nearly 10 times the legal limit — to Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine’s campaign for governor, records in Georgia and Alabama show.
The documents show Oxendine, who wields regulatory power over all insurance companies in Georgia, received the money through 10 Alabama-based political action committees set up by Donald V. Watkins, a director of Admiral Life Insurance Co. of America and State Mutual Insurance. Both companies are headed by prominent businessman Delos “Dee” Yancey III and are run out of the same building in Rome.
Georgia’s Ethics-in-Government Act prohibits officials from taking money directly from companies they regulate. The law also prohibits funneling money through multiple PACs to get around contribution limits of $12,200 per candidate in an election cycle.
"Ethics-in-Government Act." Must be nice. Since the Alabama Legislature refuses to enact meaningful campaign finance reforms, why not embrace the corruption and levy a tax on out of state money passing through our PACs? Who needs gambling revenue when we can tax political corruption directly? This could fix Alabama's budget problems for a decade or more.
Today we have dueling press releases concerning campaign spending from the Ron Sparks and Artur Davis campaigns.
Statement from Ron Sparks:
After our campaign challenged Congressman Davis for spending more than $25,000 on his gubernatorial campaign and failing to file with the Secretary of State, he then made the appropriate filing. When he filed with the Secretary of State, he admitted he had spent $25,000 from his Congressional account on his gubernatorial race. I believe Congressman Davis’ transfer of funds from his Congressional account to his gubernatorial campaign prior to June 1is a clear violation of the law restricting fundraising during this period. Congressman Davis’ contention that Alabama law allows him to spend money from his congressional account prior to June 1 is just factually wrong.
Our campaign cannot accept donations from PACs or other political committees during this period. Our gubernatorial campaign cannot accept transfer of funds from my existing committee established for my campaigns for Agriculture Commissioner before June 1.
Congressman Davis has been in Washington too long – a place where one must ask “what is your definition of ‘is’?” He seems comfortable saying on one hand “I’m running for Governor” and on the other “No I’m not” depending on which law he is selecting to obey. This is both confusing and disappointing. While Congressman Davis is calling for ethics reform in government, his actions have to make us ask, “What is his definition of ethics?”
Whew! "Clear violation of law." That's pretty strong stuff. Predictably, the other folks don't see it that way.
From Artur Davis' spokesperson:
“Obviously, Ron Sparks is frustrated that even Democratic insiders in Montgomery are furiously abandoning him to try to find another ‘stop Davis’ candidate,” campaign spokeswoman Anna Ruth Williams said. “Perhaps if Mr. Sparks laid out a vision for the state of Alabama instead of making outlandish, uninformed statements about campaign finance law, he might win some supporters. If Mr. Sparks needs to be educated on state campaign finance law, he is welcome to call the Attorney General’s Office or the Secretary of State’s Office.”
And from Congressman Davis himself:
“It’s unfortunate that my old friend, Ron Sparks, has already decided that his best path to victory is a negative campaign. If Ron takes the time to look at Alabama campaign finance law and federal law, he will realize that his statements are flatly wrong. I would also encourage the Commissioner to do what my congressional committee has already done, which is to identify our donors and spending, so that Alabama voters can see in real-time who is supporting his bid for governor. I trust that Ron Sparks will realize that with an economic crisis going on and our state’s finances in disarray, that Alabama voters want more than a negative, scorched-earth campaign.”
Obviously, both candidates are spending money -- they have expenses for signs, websites, press people -- at the very least. That money is coming from somewhere, in both cases, but where? I assumed they were both spending from their current warchests, but I freely admit to being confused about what the Alabama Fair Campaign Practices Act allows. You smart people who do understand it, feel free to enlighten the rest of us because this is another of those "eyes glaze over" subjects and we need to hear it in very simple terms.
Politically, I think Sparks has decided this is an area where he can at least cast doubts on Davis' ethics and he'll get considerable media time by doing so. That positive, issues based campaign we've been hoping for is looking like pie in the sky already.
For some reason the GOP don't want poor women to have access to family planning. I can't for the life of me figure out why. Or maybe I can...read Reproductive Justice and the Stimulus for clues.
A few days ago, the Obama administration raised hopes about a more equitable reproductive health policy by lifting the so-called “global gag rule.” But on the domestic front, the new White House is retrenching on reproductive justice, hoping to avoid Republican backlash.
Conservatives have blasted a provision in the stimulus proposal to shore up funding for Medicaid-based family planning programs. “How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives?” asked Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio). “How does that stimulate the economy?”
The rhetoric exposes the disconnect between the political establishment and the race and class realities many women face in their communities. Step back from the Beltway potshots, and it’s easy to see a link between socioeconomic and racial equity and the freedom to make responsible choices about pregnancy.
Congressman Artur Davis is contemplating a run for governor of Alabama in 2010 and the Tuscaloosa News reports his views on several issues related to state government. He reiterates his support for Contitutional Reform (yaaayyy!) and makes decent points about Alabama's tax structure, but this comment has upset a few Don Siegelman supporters:
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS: Davis favors placing limits on campaign contributions. "The whole Siegelman-Scrushy business, whatever you think of all that, it starts with a $500,000 check. In my opinion, nobody ought to be able to write a $500,000 check for anything for any purpose. Nobody writes you a $500,000 check for good government. So nobody ought to be able to give that much."
Is this an attack on Siegelman? Not unless you believe there really was a quid pro quo to put Scrushy on the CON Board in exchange for that $500,000.
Davis is pointing out a fact that should be obvious to all who desire good and open government -- money is the root of all evil and big money is the tap root of all evil. Campaign contributions in Alabama are almost unlimited. If Exxon/Mobil or HealthSouth (or their top people) donate $500,000 to someone and you donate $50, who do you think will have the most access? Whose call will the recipient take, even at 3 am? Not yours and not mine. That's why the Big Mules continue to make big contributions -- it buys them access, which is not the same thing as outright favors. Access means the big donors get a chance to make their case directly -- you and I have to do it some other way -- and that preferential access is not healthy for small "d" democracy. It also opens the door for the appearance of impropriety, which is where the Scrushy-Siegelman mess started.
Congressman Davis is right about the big money in Alabama politics. We need reasonable limits on campaign contributions, say $1000 per individual per election coupled with limits and transparency on PAC contributions.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 today that the so-called Millionaire's Amendment of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law is unconstitutional.
Today's Supreme Court opinion in FEC v. Davis nominally deals with a relatively tangential portion of the McCain-Feingold law; but the 5-4 decision has much broader implications, laying the groundwork for striking down limits on spending by corporations and unions. It also could make public financing plans less effective and less desirable. Here is some initial analysis to explain that point (subject to change as I study the opinion further).
1. The law BCRA section 319 (and related provisions, with parallel provisions in Senate races) sets up special rules for cases involving self-financed candidates. The details are complex and set forth in the majority opinion, but in essence the rule works like this: if a wealthy candidate spends more than $350,000 of personal funds on a campaign, the contribution limits of his opponent get raised from the usual federal limit (currently at $2,300) to triple that amount (currently at $6,900). The wealthy candidate must file periodic reports, and the raised limit is eliminated when there is parity in spending between the two candidates.
...
All in all, not a great day for those who believe, as I do, that "there is no good reason to allow disparities in wealth to be translated into disparities in political power. A well-functioning democracy distinguishes between market processes of purchase and sale on the one hand and political processes of voting and reason-giving on the other." (Dissent, quoting Sunstein 94 Colum. L. Rev 1390).
The millionaire's provision has already come up in two Alabama Congressional primary races this year -- AL-02 where several candidates contributed more thane $350,000 to their own campaigns and AL-05 where Cheryl Baswell Guthrie did the same. Given that Congress is unlikely to hammer out any new legislation on self-funding in the next 5 months, it looks like any candidate with personal money can spend as much as he or she wants to get elected this year while their opponent remains limited to $2300 per contributor individual.
Which candidates have the deepest pockets? In AL-02 it's probably Jay Love -- he sold a successful chain of restaurants a couple of years ago. In the fifth district, it isn't clear, but Cheryl Baswell Guthrie has demonstrated a willingness to borrow money to finance her campaign.
(Griffith was expected to be a "self-funding" candidate, but all this money is from contributions -- no loans! - promoted by mooncat)
Parker Griffith's online report shows he raised over $210K (including 19,800 in 24 hr notice) since the quarterly report. Cash on hand is close to $300K.
State Senator and congressional candidate Harri Anne Smith's pre-primary financial disclosure is now online -- details below the fold. Compared to her first quarter totals, Smith's fundraising this period (4/1 thru 5/14) was anemic.
She had total contributions of $66,952, mostly from individuals. If she had continued on her first quarter pace she would have raised around $125,000 this period -- nearly twice as much as she actually took in. Hence the loan of $123,901.18 for a total of $190,853.18 in receipts this period. That brings her grand total to $459,627 so far in this race.
Expenditures for the period were $168,997.89 which brings her total spending to $298,523.75. The money is largely going for advertising and consulting -- a cool $100,000 to Swinehart Consulting in Pensacola. As of May 14 she had $161,103.25 cash on hand.
I looked at the list of Smith contributors (about 60 individuals) and about a quarter of them are maxed out donors. All in all, this was not a great 6 weeks for Harri Anne Smith.
