CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%↑

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams

55%↑

45%↓

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 16, 2007 06:56 PM UTC

Campaign Finance Complaint Against Musgrave

  • 21 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

From a press release:

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the campaign committees and treasurers for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R- CO). The complaints ask the FEC to investigate all three for failing to properly report contributors to their campaigns. The complaint against Sen. Coburn addresses violations committed during the 2004 election cycle, while the complaints against Rep. Diaz-Balart and Rep. Musgrave cover the 2006 election cycle.

All three campaigns demonstrated a pattern of illegal conduct by failing to properly identify their contributors in the days leading up to the election…

…Musgrave for Congress consistently failed to disclose the identities of contributors throughout the 2006 election cycle in four consecutive reports. After receiving each report, the FEC asked Musgrave’s committee to provide the identities of contributors, but the committee failed to respond to two of those requests until after the election. The committee also failed to file ten 48-hour reports for a total of $19,491 in contributions.

CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan said, “Campaign finance laws are not optional. By law, candidates are required to file certain reports with the Federal Election Commission. If candidates don’t want to comply with the law, they shouldn’t run for office.”

Comments

21 thoughts on “Campaign Finance Complaint Against Musgrave

  1. If you fail to properly file and can’t give a really good reason, the FEC docks points from your election results – kind of like hitting the poles in a slalom.  If it’s resolved before Congress is sworn in, the modified election results stand.  If it’s after the fact, and the deductions would have cost you the race, you’re out and a special election is called.

    (Of course, to make it completely legal, the “FEC” would have to be a completely Congressional body, not the Executive body it currently is…)

    1. While anything that would get rid of the embarrassment that is Musgrave appeals to me there is one small problem:  Docking points would violate the right of voters to have their vote count.  Better to disqualify any candidate who fails to meet the reporting deadline twice in a row from eligibility.  If you don’t follow the rules you get eliminated prior to the election.

    2. Be careful what you wish for.  If your rule was in place 10-15 years ago, your beloved Bill Clinton would’ve lost the ’96 election.  Does the point deduction count double if you commit multiple counts of purgery while in office?

      1. How dare you soil the noble name of “Clinton”.
        We must all forgive and foget his lying under oath and shady land deals with his darling bride.
        For shame.

        1. We must all forgive and foget(sic) his lying under oath and shady land deals with his darling bride.

          As opposed to Reagan’s lies (I do not remember?), deceits, gun running, deficits, etc? The most corrupt admin. of all time (of course, W. has NOT been investigated; I am waiting for the Haliburton and Sibel Edmund to start).

        2.   $ 40,000,000 of YOUR tax dollars were spent investigating Whitewater after which Ken Starr cleared Bill Clinton and his “darling bride.”
            The only thing he did wrong was fib about the B.J.

      2. Once again, ladies and gennulmen, we have another case of RRCD – REpublican REading Comprehension Disorder.

        What has perjury got to do with failure to file campaign information to the FEC?  NOTHING!

        Stick to the topic.  If you can.

  2. She failed to report almost $20,000 and didn’t disclose the people who gave her money.  Maybe she’s ashamed because they were assault weapon toting whackjobs.  Maybe Tim “I hate gay people” Hardaway gave her money.  Didn’t she also present false statements in her television commercials?  Now that MM is out of the majority, she can’t focus on “the most important issue” this country faces, but maybe she could focus on obeying the law.

    What a waste, to Congress, Colorado and her district.

    1. …that Musgrave tried to get around campaign finance laws, or that she postponed compliance until after the election. There’s a pattern here — she seems to think she’s above the law.

      CREW’s been after her on this kinda thing for a while. It’s no wonder she was honored on the “13 most corrupt” in Congress list in ’05 and 06, and it’s too bad that 46% of CO-4 voters would rather put partisanship above responsible government.

  3. What do they mean by “identities”?  If they mean names, then that would be hard to determine.  Do the receipts not match the expenditures? 

    However, if by “identities” they mean occupation and employer, then this might just be BS.  While federal campaigns are required to disclose the occupation and employer of their donors, donors are not required to disclose their occupation and employer to the campaigns.  Campaigns must jump through a series of “best effort” hoops to ask the donors for their O&E, but at no point in the process do the donors have to comply.  The campaign then notates “best effort” on the R&E report and moves on.

    In other words, this could be a completely trumped up fishing expedition by an activist group to get their names in the paper.

    1. Probable, no.

      The charges of Miss Manners’ illicit deeds are part of a long time pattern.  Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.  It’s not like she’s been a model of compliance and above the fray campaigning.  Remember in 2004 it was found out that the address for her campaign HQ was the back door of her congressional office?  Highly illegal.

      Your points are valid and considered.  But it sounds like she might have had significantly more unstated donors than other representatives.

      1. Actually, that was thoroughly debunked by the Greeley Tribune who (as opposed to the Denver papers) actually sent a real, live reporter to investigate and found the whole thing unfounded.  It wasn’t the back door (I’m going by memory here).  It was part of the same office complex, and they had gone to great lengths to comply with the law and segregate any political operations from Congressional operations.

        And there’s the problem (on both sides).  All it takes is an allegation – well-founded or otherwise – to make the newspapers.

        For example, I could found an organization tomorrow, let’s call it People Often Offended by Politicians, put together a letterhead and logo on my color laser printer and deem Diana DeGette completely corrupt (in my opinion, set out by my standards.)  Then I create a catchy “10 Worst” tag and send it out to every newspaper in the country with the hope that one picks it up without any serious research, and…

        In October of 2008 I’m running TV ads quoting the story that I planted with my front group: “Diana DeGette was one of POOP’s 10 Worst Legislators for 2007!”  (And to give it validity, I source it to whichever gullible newspapers ran with the story in the first place.) 

        1. I wasn’t aware of the differing story, news junky that I am.

          Yes, you are right about how some organizations work, or what we can do in this computer age.  Nevertheless, it seems that charges of whatever, corruption in this case, seem to land in some politicians laps far more than others.

          If you start up POOP, I’m in for a buck!

          1. That Greeley Trib piece was BS by their hack sports writer, and a favor to Guy Short (the only one even quoted in there). The campaign office was made up so that they could separate the mail. There was no Suite 777 in that building. It didn’t exist. To get to the “office” you had to go up a fire escape to an unmarked, locked door. That happened that happened to lead into the Musgrave official office.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

69 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!