Wait, no, that’s the wrong quote from Jerry Maguire, I meant…
SHOW ME THE MONEY!
(Yes, I was channeling my inner Margie Joyce there.)
Remember when I talked about “the softer the money, the more political the juice?” By the way, I was chuckling over that title for days, but received no comments on the topic or the niftiness of the title. Sad. 😦 So turns out, they didn’t file after all. As reported in the Alameda Journal:
A political action committee supporting a slate of candidates for Alameda City Council has failed to file its campaign contributions and expenses…
Diane Coler-Dark, the treasurer for the Keep Measure A committee, said the postcard that went out cost a little more than $2,400. She said the City Clerk told her that the group did not have to file campaign finance documents until Jan. 31…
DeHaan said he knew little about the political action committee except that it was legally registered and supportive of the Action Alameda campaign.
And the Times-Star reports:
…According to rules spelled out on the FPPC’s Web site, such committees are required to file “pre-election statements in connection with a city election if they (made) contributions or independent expenditures totaling $500 or more” during designated time periods.
For contributions and expenditures made between Oct. 1 and Oct. 21, financial statements were supposed to be filed last week.
…
Bail said the slate’s candidates have filed accurate campaign financial statements, on time, and that they had nothing to do with the postcard.
“This is a small potatoes, one-shot postcard,” she said. “Why are they making a big deal about this? I don’t understand it. I had nothing to do with it.”
I guess if you are a soft money group supporting the “Slate” you are special and you don’t have to file campaign disclosure documents like the rest of the yahoos out there. It seems a bit disingenuous for Diane Coler-Dark to claim ignorance since she is so closely tied to the “Slate.” And even more disingenuous for Doug deHaan to say he knew “little” about the PAC since his BFF and slatemate Pat Bail is one of the contact people for the PAC. Because you guessed it, the “Keep Measure A” committee is one in the same with this organization: www.keepmeasurea.org. One of the contact phone numbers is Pat Bail’s, so hurry and look at the site before they yank it. (Don’t worry, I have a screen shot, just in case)
And, if the amount is only a paltry $2400 (which already triggers the reporting amount, I want to say that it’s $1000) why aren’t they filing it? What do they have to hide? I checked the Secretary of State’s website with the listed FPPC number and turns out they haven’t filed one red cent during its entire history. Which cannot be correct, after all, they have the website, and they had signs (there was a place you could request a keep measure a sign on the website). It’s amazing that the Slate and some of their supporters have the audacity to harp on the benefit that other candidates are receiving from soft money, but at least those organizations filed something so that we, as voters, could be privvy to who holds the purse string. But this stonewalling and claims of ignorance from the Keep Measure A group feels as though they are trying to circumventt the process and therefore keep voters in the dark.
(Edited to add the Times-Star article)
Blogging Bayport Alameda 
Pat Bail owns the keepmeasurea.org website!
Comment by Alameda — October 31, 2006 @ 8:40 am
AHA! So the lady has no clue about a website registered in her own name? Or is that her evil (or should I say good) twin who lives at the same address?
Comment by Richard — October 31, 2006 @ 9:33 am
I can’t believe that the Journal and Times Star “scooped” Don Roberts on this one! Though, I imagine that Don’s headline might have been “John Knox White is anti Alameda Neighborhoods”
Comment by Steve — October 31, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
Oggge… what an ugly thought Pat Bail with Dave Howard she is old and he is actully sorta cute
Comment by Joaquin — October 31, 2006 @ 1:24 pm
The amount of the Keep Measure A group’s budget and expenditures DOES make all the protest about it look like “small potatoes” when it is compared to the Perata machine PACs’ funding and expenditures, folks.
That is not to say we should excuse or favor ANY group that fails to file timely and forthright campaign fubding and expenditure reports, especially with the FPPC. Every PAC should be filing the required reports and reveal their activities. We need to know.
Comment by Jon Spangler — October 31, 2006 @ 2:00 pm
Jon, it maybe small potatoes, but do keep in mind that not all of Perata’s PAC funding goes towards influencing Alameda’s elections.
The issue is more ironic here since Slate made a big deal of “open government”, but they’ve failed the very first sniff test!
Comment by John L — October 31, 2006 @ 2:10 pm
Joaquin, what was that all about? 🙂
Comment by Chris — October 31, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
The point, missed by Mr. Spangler, is that until a group (any group) files their contributions and expenditures, nobody knows what the amount is or where it comes from. Currently, this group admits to spending 10% of what the slate has raised (without reporting any of it).
Until they report it, which it’s interesting that they contnue to delay doing, nobody knows what this group is up to.
If at the end of the day it’s $2400, then it’s not a huge amount. But the actions surrounding these “small potatoes,” speak to a different concern than amount of money.
Without the letter to the City Attorney and a yet to be completed filing of contributions and expenditures, voters have no record of any of what is happening at the Keep Measure A PAC. (It’s why the FPPC was set up in the first place).
Lauren doesn’t mention that other groups have also been doing “Independent” mailings on behalf of the slate, slipping them in under the $1000 level so that they don’t have to report it.
Pat claims her opponents in the last election violated the “spirit” of election laws, but that she would never do such a thing. Don Roberts just posted something a few days ago about Frank Mataresse’s “Late” filing of $1500. (something Pat Bail did with $20,000 in the last election, but closer to election day, not on the day of the second filing. That was on top of the $100K she had alredy filed).
Why is a legal filing of money a problem, but almost twice as much money “small potatoes.”
Pat vowed that she will be up-front and honest in her filings. Her comments, and the actions of her PAC co-founder, seem to say differently.
WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON? {channeling both Margie JOYCE and DEBRA overfeld, I couldn’t resist.)
Comment by John Knox White — October 31, 2006 @ 5:22 pm
According the SOS:
General purpose recipient committees (PAC’s and political party committees) that make aggregate contributions and/or independent expenditures of $500 or more during the period covered by a pre-election statement are required to file pre-election statements accordingly.
This means that a statement was due on 10/5 for the third quarter.
If, they made independent expenditures of $500 or more from 10/1 to 10/21, then they should have filed a pre-election report by 10/26.
Does the slate think they are above the law?
What are they trying to hide?
Aren’t these the same people that preach to us about having more transparency and openness in government and scream at every perceived violation of the Brown Act?
I guess public access only applies when you disagree with what someone does….Where’s Don Roberts’ outrage?
Are we going to have to wait until January to see where the money is coming from?
We have a right to know who is financing the people who want to run our city. The Mayor complies with the law, Sen. Perata complies with the law, the Democratic and Republican central committees comply with the law. Why can’t the slate?
Comment by Jim O. — October 31, 2006 @ 8:03 pm
Paging NIMBY and David Howard: where are the campaign filings o’ sanctimonious folks?
Perhaps this calls for another oxymoron like Republican family values?
Comment by Chris — October 31, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
Oops, looks like somebody went off on an accusation spree again, without waiting for the facts. See the Journal today for WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON (channelling both Lauren and John-Knox White, sorry, couldn’t resist either.)
Ok, here’s the highlights:
“City Clerk Lara Weisiger acknowledged giving that advice but realized this week that it had been incorrect after a group of residents questioned the committee’s finances this week.
…
Coler-Dark filed the report with the City Clerk’s Office on Thursday, Weisiger said.
The Alameda Fire Fighters Association Political Action Committee was expected to submit its late expenditures on Friday, Weisiger said. That group also failed to file as required by state law.”
So, looks like it’s all good, other than a clerical mistake. Lauren, will you post the Firefighters PAC’s expenditures as soon as they are in?
Comment by NIMBY — November 3, 2006 @ 10:20 am
NIMBY, will you address the stalking and censorship issues by your fellow Slate mates?
How about Pat Bail being opposed to the library? You do care about the community don’t you? Isn’t the library part of the community?
How convenient for you to leave out the sentence that reads:
“Ultimately, it’s the committee’s responsibility to follow the rules.”
fyi, WHAT’S GOING ON? was initially coined as a catch all phrase by Joyce (another one of your Slate mate seeing conspiracies behind every shadow).
Comment by Chris — November 3, 2006 @ 10:35 am
Ok … NIMBY, let us keep the firefighters out of this. Wombats make better pets than dogs.
Unlike the Slate which filed ZERO reports until now, the firefighters PAC filed an initial reports. Check the archives.
Keep the firefighters out of your nasty insinuations.
[edited to “keep the peace”]
Comment by Richard — November 3, 2006 @ 10:43 am
Richard, I’ll give you a chance to substantiate your claims about me with my own words, or apologize. Otherwise, I’ll ask Lauren to remove your post. It’s one thing to express an opinion based on fact, it’s quite another to lie about people’s positions in a public forum.
Comment by NIMBY — November 3, 2006 @ 11:08 am
No apologies from me …
You have all along kept quiet despite mounting evidence that the people you support have indulged in the stuff I mention. If that doesn’t mean tacit approval, I don’t know what does.
Care to explain your dual stance?
Comment by Richard — November 3, 2006 @ 11:11 am
You claim that wombats make better pets than dogs. There’s nothing on this blog that proves or even suggests that. You can make whatever you want of my “silence,” but you cannot accuse me of “slinging mud” at the groups you mention. Your statement is a lie. If Lauren keeps it on, it would tell me that this is an unsafe place to post an opinion because of the risk of public defamation. Lauren?
[edited to match edit above, now everyone play nice!]
Comment by NIMBY — November 3, 2006 @ 11:24 am
For a lesson in public defamation, take a look at your own postings on ADN and the other pro-Slate letters.
And while you are at it, take a good hard look at David Howard and Don Roberts attempt to silence dissent by intimidation.
I have merely linked your silence to tacit approval! No need to get all steamed up — the truth can be hard to bear.
Comment by Richard — November 3, 2006 @ 11:35 am
Richard,
Don Roberts has his opinions & agenda, as do we all. But I challenge you to cite any “intimidation” on his part.
Comment by dave — November 3, 2006 @ 11:37 am
Dave, as John P says : you’ve been drinking too much of the Roberts koolaid. Evidently, you didn’t watch the most recent episode (or are you feigning ignorance?)
Comment by Chris — November 3, 2006 @ 11:40 am
I don’t watch him, I just read him.
Describe the episode
Comment by dave — November 3, 2006 @ 11:56 am
Lauren has just posted the video I was referring to … let us see how the Slate supporters spin this.
Comment by Chris — November 3, 2006 @ 11:56 am
First off, the issue is reporting, until Pat’s Keep Measure A PAC accurately reports what actual money is in the committee and where it came from (they still has not), this is hardly “going off without the facts.”
In fact, the Facts bear out the initial concerns that were raised. This group was doing campaign mailings and not reporting them (The firefighters have done no mailings that I know off, but all their expenditures are recorded in the contributions of the candidates, so while they are also in violation, and I’m happy to see them fix that, the money they spent was also out in the open).
Until the Journal called, no one knew how much money this PAC had, given Pat’s involvement with it and her past statements about a willingness to spend more in this election than in the last (Don Roberts, November 2, 2004), people had a valid question. Some of which has still not been answered.
It’s unlike you to leave out the second part of the quote:
“The issue just didn’t come up before,” Weisiger said. “Ultimately, it’s the committee’s responsibility to follow the rules.”
Here’s what the Times Star wrote:
“The nonprofit group raised more than $2,000 in individual contributions in 2004, Coler-Dark said.
None of these contributions showed up on the statement that was filed, however. ”
Is it possible that the “individual” who gave the money, was the same individual who claimed she wouldn’t spend her own money? We won’t know, because they won’t report it.
It speaks strongly to the sham of “open government” that these folks speak of, when they brush of not only the spirit of election laws, but the legality of them.
Don’s site made a total mockery of this by complaiing about a $1500 donation to the Matarrese campaign, legally reported within 24 hours of receipt as breaking “the spirit” of election laws, and then running “articles” proclaiming the $2400 (also known as 50% more than Frank’s contribution) as “small potatoes.”
But then, what to you expect from someone who’s ideas of political comentary include stalking people.
It’s interesting that this well-oiled grassroots campaign has contributions from 2 people that total 1/3 of their entire campaign fund, and one of them is family. Sounds incredibly populist and grassroots to me.
Comment by John Knox White — November 3, 2006 @ 11:59 am
re: Chris, John P. —
(Dave shakes his head.)
I’m a different “Dave S.” than “dave”.
(There’s too many Daves to keep track of. We’re going to need a score card.)
Okay.
(If I have to explain the joke, it’s not a joke anymore, but…)
(sigh)
For the folks who haven’t been to the site before say, October:
I’ve (a) been away from the blog for the better part of a month, and (b) not a big Howard fan since I think he skews his statistics, (c) while I’m a non-Slater and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that the youtube person COULD be him, (d) another explanation is that he isn’t our 86-year old video friend and he merely knows who is.
I’ll agree it’s REALLY LIKELY it’s him, but there are other possibilities. Nor does it excuse his previous behavior while I was out.
I mean, the baby, Howard?
Comment by Dave S. — November 3, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
Argh.
Apparently, I’m the one that can’t keep all the dave’s straight.
Comment by Dave S. — November 3, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
I’m just plain “dave” — no initilas, no last name, nothing like that. That simplicity combined with my irrefutable logic should make my posts easily discernible from the other, rather plebeian Daves/Davids.
Comment by dave — November 3, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
OK, I watched the Don Roberts video. How is that intimidation?
Comment by dave — November 3, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Just to toss in with the dave confusion – I, Dave Kirwin also had not looked at any lauredo site for weeks or maybe a month or more, until the other day. It just seems this site is so counter-productive to realizing goals and directions for the future of our island city It is a shame it is such a waste of time… But I always sign my post with my name and it is followed by the “comment by” D. Kirwin
…And No thanks, I don’t drink kool-aid. In laurendo-world someone is trying to pass off the thin soup of Jimmy Jones again.
Comment by D.Kirwin — November 4, 2006 @ 1:13 am
Yeah, it figures that time I would forget to sign my name at the end of the post huh?
-Dave Kirwin
Comment by D.Kirwin — November 4, 2006 @ 1:16 am