On FAUX News on Thursday, news commentator Andrew P. Napolitano asked Joe Miller:"Is Senator Murkowski taking PAC money from people who are doing business with the Federal government, in violation of Federal law?"
Miller answered:
"Yeah, we've got a HUGE problem up here. In fact the Native regional corporations, which are self-described Federal contractors, are using Federal contracting money to pop back into the campaign, to make vicious personal attacks against me.
"In fact, hundreds of thousands of dollars have gone into this race. We've filed an FEC complaint about it yesterday. We're calling upon Murkowski and McAdams to basically call off these donations that are ilegal, but so far we haven't heard anything from either of those campaigns."
Here's the segment from the FAUX show:
Here's the article at Miller's campaign site on the filing of the complaint:
The Joe Miller for U.S. Senate Campaign Committee today filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that nine benefactors of “Alaskans Standing Together” (“AST”) and two of its officers have acted in violation of federal law in trying to influence the Alaska U.S. Senate election on behalf of Senator Lisa Murkowski.According to the complaint, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Ahtna, Inc., Bering Straits Native Corporation, Calista Corporation, Chugach Alaska Corporation, Sealaska Corporation, NANA Regional Corporation, Koniag, Inc., and Doyon, Ltd., are all contributors to “Alaskans Standing Together” and “are major suppliers of goods and services to the federal government…” according to the Alaska 8(a) Association Mission Statement.
Federal Election Laws specifically prohibit federal contractors from making contributions or expenditures related to federal elections. According to the complaint, “nine of these corporate entities that are part of the scheme that has received billions in federal funds and contract with the federal government contributed a total of $805,000 to AST, which has now reported making ‘independent’ expenditures in the US Senate race in support of Lisa Murkowski, totaling $595,000 to date.”
Republican nominee for U.S. Senate Joe Miller released the following statement:
“Even by Washington D.C. standards, the level of corruption shown by ‘Alaskans Standing Together’ and Lisa Murkowski is shocking. Their efforts to preserve the status quo and re-elect their ‘bought and paid for’ Senator are not even bound by the law. The Alaskan Native Corporations have reaped billions from questionable set-asides and federal contracting programs and Senator Murkowski has fought efforts to reform them. We now know why.”
From the complaint filed by the Miller campaign:
Federal law prohibiting the use of federal funds for political purposes is clear – and Respondents Jason Moore, Barbara Donatelli and AST have violated the statute by soliciting such funds from the contractor donor Respondents and each of them have violated federal law by contributing federal contractor funds for a political purposes.
Where did Scott McAdams come into the picture? Is Joe just dreaming that Scott is part of the complaint? Or is he once again lying intentionally?
19 comments:
I wondered where McAdams figured in when I saw your headline. Did Joe miss the bit where McAdams posted his list of donors online? Miller didn't respond to McAdams' challenge to him and Murkowski to do the same, did he? It's obvious which candidate is actually being transparent and offering full disclosure about anything voters want to know.
"Is Joe just dreaming that Scott is part of the complaint? Or is he once again lying intentionally?"
Who knows? Maybe poor Joe has been dreaming all along. We've been calling him a liar, when in fact he can't distinguish dream from reality very well, and he prefers the dream when it's more pleasant. Or maybe lying has become such a habit that it has become "unintentional" much of the time. Maybe it matters from a psychiatric perspective, but why should voters care?
He's obviously trying to make people think that his opponents are just as bad as he is, so that they will vote for him on the basis of ideology without regard for his character. But why vote for someone who says what you want to hear when you know he's manipulative and a liar?
At this point, Miller is just slinging mud and waiting to see what sticks. Desperate measures for a desperate man.
With all this, Lisa may still cause this man to win where he can just be a tool in DC. Is there a way to recall him? If the sanity vote is split, all he needs is one vote more than either Lisa or McAdams.
Not that long ago, these dirty deeds, in politics that we are seeing now, could have been hidden from Alaskan's. Thank God, we have the internet and the worlds finest Bloggers & Internet News Services! Now we need affordable, dependable high speed Internet for all of Alaska!
Better Internet for an Informed Alaska. :D
How about a donation of $2000 to Joe Miller from Friends Community Church?
I thought under FEC rules, churches couldn't donate.
Shouldn't Joe give it back?
@1:26
I think people realize how much Palin got away with and don't want it to happen again. Also,I have been following alot of Palin endorsements. It seems like when she endorses,the questions start being asked -like with Rick Perry(tons of bad press),Nikki Haley(many lies uncovered), etc., etc. Palin endorsed Stephen Broden in Sept FB post. He started being questioned and then said he wanted violent overthrow of the govt. Palin's endorsement is why he was even noticed. Hopefully, in the future, with or without a Palin endorsement, people will dig for all info, good and bad, about all candidates.
H
2:21pm
Have that right.
Here is the question- if all candidates were subjected to the same scrutiny what would be found?
Are the halls of government filled with roughly the same level of candidate as Sarah Palin endorses?
If not then the Palin endorsement is useful to point out where to look to prevent more of her ilk in government.
There are many reasons that make a Palin endorsement a warning that this is good place to dig for the dirt.
" $2,000 from Friends Community Church" ! That might be interesting too.
A donation of $2,000 to Joseph Miller from Friends Community Church was referenced above.
From the same link is the following statement which may answer the question asked.
"This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2009 - 2010 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."
I could be wrong... but I'm pretty sure 501(c)(3)'s (like churches) cannot form PAC's under either FEC rules OR IRS rules.
Churches are off bounds for POLITICAL contributions.
I just can't get past the irony that this man who is so deeply in personal debt has the audacity to portray himself as someone we should vote for to balance the federal budget.
I also think people who have any experience with Miller should come forward and let us know whether he is sane.
Since when does the Department of the Airforce (whatever that is) and the National Weather Service donate to campaigns? Or are the donors' names eliminated and their occupations listed? This is very strange. I do know when making a donation one has to list their occupation, but I have never seen a donor list sent out this way.
Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20224
Attn: SE:T:EO:CEO
tege.eo.ceo@irs.gov
Churches should also see Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations.
The Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to all campaigns including campaigns at the federal, state and local level. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Those section 501(c)(3) organizations that are private foundations are subject to additional restrictions that are not described in this fact sheet.
What is Political Campaign Intervention?
Political campaign intervention includes any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention. Distributing statements prepared by others that favor or oppose any candidate for public office will also violate the prohibition. Allowing a candidate to use an organization’s assets or facilities will also violate the prohibition if other candidates are not given an equivalent opportunity. Although section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage in some activities to promote voter registration, encourage voter participation, and provide voter education, they will violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention if they engage in an activity that favors or opposes any candidate for public office. Certain activities will require an evaluation of all the facts and circumstances to determine whether they result in political campaign intervention.
4:34 here again.
My comment quoting the Open Secrets site was not intended to imply that all was in order.
But IIRC what the Open Secrets site does is report the corporations and employers associated with individuals making contributions. That is what the quote says. If for instance the pastor of the church makes a donation above a certain threshold ($200?) the campaign must record and report the employer associated with and reported by the donor. The CHURCH would then show on the Open Secrets site- but they might not be the actual donor.
That does not mean that in the case of a pastor that the church made the donation. That also does not also mean that the donation was not made by the church. Further information is needed to know. I'll post different sites where the actual donor is reported as soon as I get a chance.
Having already looked at this campaign and those involved in some detail- more checking is needed.
What needs to be done is verify who the contribution actually came from.
A quick glance reveals one and possibly two of Joe's Troopergate lawsuit plaintiffs on this top donor list.
That would be David Eichler and the donor listed as C Company might be Seth Church . Go to
https://myalaska.state.ak.us/business/
And make a selection at the upper left for how to start your search.
Select "by entity name" and enter "c company" to see officers and so forth.
Select "by officer name" and enter "Seth Church" to also see "C Company" and "A Street Apartments LLC"- which appears on Joe Miller's lately filed candidate disclosure form.
There are probably more donations of interest on closer inspection.
It seems that when Joe is closely scrutinized- there is something else to not answer questions about.
The other thing is this 'projection
issue' that certain types of politicians have. Accusing the opponent in reality means that the accuser is doing... exactly that same thing.
Lying intentionally, for sure. Anybody else getting the feeling Joe has moved past Alaska and is shooting for a national position? Doesn't seem to give a hoot about Alaskans. Maybe V.P.? Or Fox News commentator? Why not? He is certainly as qualified as Sarah.
An interesting sidebar - Alaska Federation of Natives is a registered non-profit 501c4.
A 501c4 is allowed to lobby for the benefit of its own organization, but restricted specifically from political campaign stuff. The rules seem a bit noodley.
The bottom line from the IRS:
"The regulations under IRC 501(c)(4) provide that promotion of social welfare does not include participation or intervention in political campaigns.
Reg. 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(ii)
"support of a candidate for public office necessarily involves the organization in the total political attitudes and positions of the candidate."
Then it goes on to say that it can. But regardless, the organization is then subject to paying taxes.
IRC 527(e)(2) defines "exempt function" as "the function of influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any federal, state or local public office or office in a political
organization, or the election of Presidential or Vice-Presidential electors, whether or not such individual or electors are selected, nominated, elected or
appointed."
"An IRC 501(c) organization that makes expenditures for such exempt function activities is subject to tax under IRC 527(b)."
The Alaska Federation of Natives is walking a very fine line with its endorsement of Murkowski, and now either way, AFN has to pay taxes.
The other interesting bit - very clear undisclosed conflicts of interest.
Kevin Sweeney - Murkowski senior staff/campaign manager. Married to Tara Sweeney.
Tara Sweeney - AFN board member. Arctic Power board member. Prior Rural Affairs assistant to the Governor.
Who: Arctic Power
What: A lobbying group funded by the state of Alaska and by industry to push for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Alaska supports the drilling because it would create new jobs.
Latest Action: Arctic Power teamed up with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters to push for the drilling amendment to the Senate budget resolution. The Teamsters’ top lobbyist, Jerry Hood, also sits on Arctic Power’s board of directors.
Money: About 70 percent of the group's funds come from the Alaska state legislature. The legislature approved $1.1 million for Arctic Power’s lobbying effort in 2003. The state had given more than $8 million to the group during the previous 10 years. Note: several million more since this.
Anyway, we all know this stuff, don't we?
And there's so much more...
Here's my burning question of the day. Regarding Alaskans Standing Together and Murkowski
:Under penalty of perjury I certify that the independent expenditures reported herein were not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with,
or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or authorized committee or agent of either, or any political party committee or its agent."
When you are the principal figure in a commercial that's about you, how is it possible for you to have been filmed if you were not "in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of," the people making the commercial?
Here is a link to find Campaign donors in general just enter the candidates name-
http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norcansea.shtml
And the link to Joseph Millers donors reached from the first by entering his name-
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_ind/S0AK00121
SHOUT OUT TO WOLFE TONE:
Look what turned up as a result of your comments above- this is news to me.
Note: at the above second link the donor from the church is listed as the pastor.
The church does appear in the media
on occasion. On Feb 20, 2009 the following appeared in the Fairbanks DNM-
"“We’re going to have an open carry day,” Schaeffer Cox, unofficial leader of the Second Amendment Task Force, said Thursday....
...
Cox said he expects about 500 gun owners in and around Fairbanks to participate. The idea sprouted at the group’s last meeting on Monday at Friends Community Church. The gathering attracted a crowd of more than 600 supporters, Cox said."
This was not the only Second Amendment Task Force meeting at the Friends Community Church I was able to document.
Joe Miller in campaign literature states "Board Member of Friends Community Church in Fairbanks".
Schaffer Cox is easy to find information about.
Friends Community Church in Fairbanks AK is apparently not a Quaker church...
Arctic Power has been defunct for many years now.
Churches cannot form PACS, it is strictly forbidden under IRS rules.
Go Scott Go,
Most republicans are sick of their options.
My Brother voted for Lisa in the primary, but he can't vote for her now. He won't vote for Joe.
So go Scott go. He figures we can always get rid of a democrat but Lisa or Joe will be here forever.
Scott will get more disgusted Republican votes than would ever guess.
Post a Comment