click the pic
help keep the lights on
donate today!
Posted on 07/01/2014 6:20:03 PM PDT by Viennacon
The federal agency regulating and monitoring money in federal elections is seeking answers from a pro-Cochran Super PAC regarding what appears to be campaign finance violations.
The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has sent a Request For Additional Information (RFAI) to Mississippi Conservatives, a Super PAC supporting the re-election of Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss. The committee has until August 1st to respond, or the failure to do so “could result in an audit or enforcement action.”
The FEC letter states the committee may have failed to file one or more of the required 24-hour report(s) regarding “last minute” independent expenditures. Specifically, the committee did not file a 24-hour report for a $15,000 payment on May 30th to Scott Howell & Company as an independent expenditures against Chris McDaniel, R-Miss.
The FEC also sought answers for an independent expenditure paid to Winning Edge that was reported on a 24-hour report, but was not correlated with the committee’s Schedule E for the 12-Day pre-runoff report covering 5/15 through 6/4.
No one likes a prolonged fight but I think McDaniel should set the example and track the corruption all the way back to DC and the GOPe.
A lot of wars in history were prolonged by a failure to hunt down the enemy when it was in retreat. Often the victors on a battlefield will run off the aggressors and call it a day. That is wrong. Because the enemy escapes and lives to fight another day. Patton knew this well.
Yes, McDaniel becomes the nominee when Cochran steps down. But he should *at a minimum* demand certain concessions from the state GOP and the GOPe in DC:
1. Immediate resignations of MS state GOP leaders including Connie Cochran and Haley Barbour.
2. No more outside funds period directed by or involving a sitting member of Congress supporting an incumbent against a challenger in a primary in any state.
3. McConnell steps down as minority leader and is barred from becoming majority leader.
4. Choice of committee assignments for Senator McDaniel.
Such demands can sue for peace in return for not pursuing criminal charges against members of the GOPe that were involved in the Cochran corruption against McDaniel.
Seem like reasonable demands, but Connie Cochran will go down separately if the allegations of McInnis are true. She’s looking at a long prison sentence.
BUMP TO THE TOP
Thank you for your continuing insight, it is invaluable.
Keep it comin’!
No one likes a prolonged fight
We’re not just trading recipes here.
Thank you so much... very few of us have the time to dig into States’ election laws, and FEC percussions on them, like you do.
Are you exhausted? I am. But in 25 hours, this has gone from a lone ex-Breitbart blogger to National!
From a posting on a knock-up website to Fox News in 25 hours. Pretty damn impressive.
I am sensing a Dan Rather moment coming
But this would be an expose of the whole RAT/RINO vote fraud machine.
The tightest held secret of American Politics ripped apart, for everybody to see the cross-section of across-the-aisle fraud.
The way the code reads, the timing refers to "between primary and general elections," and I don't know if an election is complete on the day the ballots are cast, or on the day the contest is finally settled, or some other day. Either way, I don't think "certification" represents final settlement. If McDaniel contests the certified outcome, the race remains unsettled until his claim is resolved.
If Cochran wins the primary (gets a final settlement after McDaniel's claims have been resolved), then drops out between the primary and general election (whatever that timing is), then there is no person with a majority of votes in the primary.
I noticed that the code does not directly address a situation where the majority vote getter in the primary (the nominee) drops out for political reasons; and that's partly how I reached the inference that if Cochran drops out for political reasons, another primary has to be held. There is also a note in the code, that if Cochran drops out for other than a non-political reason, the executive committee lacks the power to name the party's nominee. This is under 23-15-317, "vacancy in nomination between primary election and general election" ...
If a nominee withdraws for a legitimate nonpolitical reason as defined in Section 23-15-317 and his sworn affidavit is approved by the State Board of Election Commissioners, the municipal party executive committee would then be required to name a substitute nominee. If a nominee withdraws and no affidavit is submitted and approved, said executive committee would have no authority to name a substitute nominee. In either case, the nominee has the right to withdraw his candidacy pursuant to Section 23-15-363. Baum, May 20, 2005, A.G. Op. 05-0237.I think all that complexity is there to prevent parties from pulling bait and switch, or intimidating/bribing a nominee (primary winner) to withdraw - and also to encourage candidates to stick to their decision to run in the primary contest.
The way I see it, the voters have fully spoken in the primary. We don't know the results yet, but the election has been held. If Cochran is found to be the winner, and drops out for ANY reason, there is no person with a majority of votes in the primary. If Cochran drops out without a good non-political reason, the party apparatchik can't name a nominee - and no person has a majority. Looks to me that path means another election.
If Cochran is found the winner then drops out with a good non-political reason, and the party apparatchik names Barbour's son as the nominee, McDaniel will contest the selection, and again there has to be an election so one or the other can obtain a majority of votes from the qualified electorate.
The fact pattern in this primary contest may admit McDaniel to otain the nomination without yet another election (assuming Cochran "wins" the primary, and drops out). If McDaniel is unopposed (i.e., T. Carey has no intention to run - but note that he'd have been on the runoff ballot if Cochran had dropped out before the runoff), conducting an election with one name on the ballot is pointless.
However, I go back to the risk of a DEM suing on the argument that NOBODY got a majority in the GOP primary, therefore the GOP winner in the general is not entitled to the seat.
If no candidate will enter the second primary with the candidate who received the highest number of votes cast, then the candidate who received the highest number of votes cast in the first primary shall be declared the nominee of his party for such office.
First, since the run-off election has occurred, we would need a ruling that the run-off is nullified and a new one scheduled.
Then, if Cochran chooses to drop out rather than force exposure of proven illegalities that might hurt the future viability of others, then it will be as if he declined the run-off altogether. If that is the case, then the section above entitles McDaniel to be the winner.
It doesn't matter that McDaninel was never a majority vote winner.
-PJ
I don't read that the same way. There is no case of dropping out for political reasons. "Political reasons" is a code-word for losing. This is meant to prevent anoth New Jersey Torricelli situation, where he dropped out because he was losing badly in the polls and the Democrats wanted to prevent Forrester from winning.
Because there is no case of dropping out for political reasons, that means that the name stays on the ballot, and the candidate then loses. There is no redo of a primary.
If Cochran wins the primary in such a pyrrhic way that he has soured himself in the general election, that's just tough for Republicans. They're stuck with him. No do-overs.
That's why it's imperative now to get Cochran out and let McDaniel win while the primary election is not finalized.
-PJ
I agree, and take back the contention that Cochran dropping out "for the good of the party, even though he won the primary" gives the party a chance for a do-over. The nominee isn't forced to "run" in the general or take the office; the person is free to retire to Tahiti or whatever they want to do. But in that case, the party has no candidate in the general, even though the name is on the ballot. Write ins would not count, etc.
It doesn't matter that McDaninel was never a majority vote winner. --
Good catch, and I agree that McDaniel need not ever have obtained a majority of the votes cast; but, the primary was a three way race. If Cochran had dropped out before the runoff, then there still would have been a runoff, unless the third candidate (name escapes me) also dropped out.
Thomas Carey got 4,789 votes (1.5% of the total). Compared to the > 150,000 votes that both Cochran and McDaniel got, I doubt that Carey would choose to participate in a new run-off, unless he's just a glory-seeking spoiler.
-PJ
click the pic
help keep the lights on
donate today!
Looks like someone may have wanted to launder that money through a third party. It is no coincidence that the number offered to buy the votes and the amount in the unaccounted expenditures was the exact same amount.
There was a 3rd place finisher in the primary. Carey I believe was his name.
Any word on the status of certification?
-PJ
July 7 is certification date if the above is correct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
