So I filled out my first campaign finance report as I must do one 12 days before the primary if candidate is in the primary, then one 2 days before the primary, then same for general....12 days before general, then 2 days before general and THEN a year end report.
It’s a spreadsheet that you must do online. I went to a class to learn how to do this.
Man, you got to watch these candidates. For one thing, the many members of the Sussex GOP give money to candidates but want to remain “anonymous”.
Now in Delaware you only have to report contributions over $600 in the aggregate sooooooo, but of course even a contribution of $100 has to be tracked in case additional contributions from same donor come up to the max.
BOTH of my candidates have this money in the checking account and they tell me that the donor wants to remain anonymous.
I was new and just listed it in my tracker as “anonymous” but at my class they told me to NOT do this.
I talked to my candidates (one of which has a couple hundred in “anonymous” donations) and told them that from now on, they can take anonymous donations but they can’t tell ME they are anonymous.
In other words....LIE to me. Cause I’m not tracking anonymous contributors cause that’s why we have to fill out these awful things, God Bless John McCain every day for reforming campaign finance, his big todo in his day, and we all sleep better knowing this.
One of my guys says Joe Blow gave him $400 cash and he had a great time just spening it....sheesh.
I’m new at this but I got to slap these guys around a little bit. I don’t want to be a GOP fool cause I’m sure the Dems lie about this sort of thing all the time.
All they got to tell me is that THEY lent the campaign this money....cause come time to go to jail, I want it on THEM, not me.
Heh.
TOTALLY OFF TOPIC Department:
There's been a thread going 'round here on Free Republic and elsewhere all over the Internet called "Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A “Vision” of the Future"
The moderators have pulled it because it's Alex Jones material but so many have commented on it and I was putting together a little visual display as to why it's wrong. Basically, the story is that the US Army is war-gaming a scenario where the TEA party revolts and takes over the town of Darlington, South Carolina. The (racist) TEA Partiers do all kinds of aggressive things like roadblocks on I-95 taking poeples money (as a "toll"), dragging them off to camps, etc. The Republican governor doesn't want to publically cvall in the feds for help because, well, you know, those crazy rabid conservatives who elected him would pitch a fit, so he secretly has to ask the Presdient for help. The federal goverment comes in with the Army and kills/arrests all the TEA partiers and then everything is fine again.
The problem with the whole story is it isn't true; the Army isn't war gaming this scenario because even they know it would never happen. The TEA paty is NOT a militia movement!!!
Anyone who thinks the TEA party is made up of white angry young men bent on armed mayhem is out of their LIBERAL minds. The Darlington scenario is just a Hollywood script that won't happen. It's not what the TEA party is about. Here are just a few ACCURATE photos of REAL TEA Partiers:
So are Grandpa and Grandma really going to take over Darlington? Do you think the Army is prepping for this? LOL!
Not likely. Much more likely the the OWS will riot and kill, burn down, and destroy. The whole thing is LIBERAL propaganda mneant to scare us.
Finally, I leave you with one further truth. Look at this, as to who was peaceful and who was not:
