Replies

It seems to hinge on the technical question of whether O'Donnell was legally a candidate or not at the time in question.

There may be DE case law on this question or they may not - but in New York it is a not a matter of whether you say you are a candidate but whether you have sufficient number of petitions to establish candidacy.

I highly doubt that "purchasing campaign software" or "testing the waters" has any legal value whatever.

Think about it: I could declare myself a candidate every year, declare all kinds of expenses (travel, meals etc.) and never get a single signature or mount a real campaign. Legally there needs to be a minimum standard. Simply filing may not meet it.

WIDEAWAKE varies from type by saying something respectful and raising at least some arguably interesting and relevant questions: It seems to hinge on the technical question of whether O'Donnell was legally a candidate or not at the time in question. There may be DE case law on this question or they may not - but in New York it is a not a matter of whether you say you are a candidate but whether you have sufficient number of petitions to establish candidacy. I highly doubt that "purchasing campaign software" or "testing the waters" has any legal value whatever. Think about it: I could declare myself a candidate every year, declare all kinds of expenses (travel, meals etc.) and never get a single signature or mount a real campaign. Legally there needs to be a minimum standard. Simply filing may not meet it.

WIDEAWAKE, the question of what it takes to get on the ballot is entirely different. That is governed by State law. For example, a person could raise and spend $20,000 and then fail to qualify for the ballot, say, in a big State like California. Those expenditures would still be legitimate campaign expenses.

Recall what is going on here. Christine had $456 in cash left over at the end of 2008 and about $19,000 and change in unpaid expenses for 2008. By the end of 2009, Christine had paid down most of those 2008 expenses, and paid off the rest in 2010.

So the only money for Christine to spend in 2009 came from DONATIONS that Christine received, from face to face meetings. During 2009, Christine met face to face with people, explained to them personally what she was doing with her 2010 campaign, and told them she was running for U.S. Senate. In response, they handed her donations for her campaign.

So the people who gave her the money knew that she was running for U.S. Senate. They talked to her personally, one on one. They wanted her to run for U.S. Senate in 2010, and wanted to give her the money to make it happen.

Testing the waters is a well-recognized legal category. A potential candidate IS allowed to raise donations and incur expenses including travel and meetings at restaurants with potential donors, potential volunteers, potential advisors, potential endorsers, potential campaign vendors, potential campaign workers. If taking a donor on a ferris wheel ride at a county fair is what it takes to get a $1,000 donation, then it is a legitimate campaign expense.

If the expenses served a campaign purpose, they are legitimate.

For example, when Christine filled up with gas in Maryland on I-95, then later that day had a MODEST lunch (like around $19) with a potential campaign donor IN WASHINGTON, D.C., then filled up with gas IN WASHINGTON, D.C. THAT SAME DAY -- this is obviously a legtimate campaign trip from Delaware to meet with potential donors in Washington, D.C.

Just like with any other job, if you incur expenses to run for office, these are legitimate expenses. If you meet with a potential client over lunch, you damn well expect your employer to pay for it. If you drive 110 miles away for your job, you damn well expect your job to pay for the gas.