Simpler & Lavelle: Cheaters: Part Deux
Yes, what Greg Lavelle did is clearly illegal. In fact, he voted on the bill that specifically made it illegal back in 2012. WHYY provides journalistic context to the News-Journal stenography. From Mark Eichmann’s story:
While PACs are not allowed to coordinate “electioneering” messages with campaigns, before 2012 PACs were able to circumvent finance disclosures of their advocacy for candidates by avoiding phrases such as “vote for Smith” in their advertising.
But in 2012, then-Gov. Jack Markell signed legislation designed to close that loophole. The law now states that “third-party advertisements that refer to a clearly identified candidate and are publicly distributed within 30 days before a primary or special election, or 60 days before a general election” are subject to the state’s disclosure requirements.
That’s exactly what Lavelle’s mailers do. Oh, and I wonder if ‘ignorance of the law’ can be a defense when the person violating the law voted on it. But Lavelle apparently doesn’t even know what the law says:
Lavelle, who denied any impropriety, said it’s legal for him to coordinate with the PAC for these mailers because they’re a form of “issue advocacy.”
“They don’t say ‘vote for,’ they don’t say the election is on a particular day. It’s issue advocacy, which is permitted under law,” he said. “It’s as simple as that.”
No it’s not. Hasn’t been since 2012.
Then the Monsignor lapses into self-pity mode:
Lavelle said the PAC is a way for him to be able to compete against a much better funded Democratic Party. He called the complaint a way for the opposing party to generate news stories.
Ah, yes, that. The financial juggernaut that is the Democratic Party. First, that’s not a defense for illegality. Second, it isn’t true. Compare the Lavelle and Sturgeon campaign reports and get back to me. Lavelle’s war chest is bloated by tens of thousands in lobbyist $$’s. Sturgeon’s, um, isn’t. Not to mention all the lobbyist bucks Lavelle has accrued over his years in R leadership.
Like many Rethugs who are running scared this year, Lavelle has opted for all-out cheating, followed by all-out lying about his all-out cheating. He does not deserve reelection. Why not send some ‘Democratic juggernaut’ dollars to Laura Sturgeon and to Colleen Davis in order to get these oleaginous slimeballs out of elective office?!
I mentioned yesterday I re-upped for Sturgeon. You folks need to get on that. These suburban Republicans are absolute garbage. Vote Sturgeon….
^WORD^ Another $100.00 going today. Wealthy criminals like Greg Lavelle only ever face the court of public opinion.
Guys, it’s totally unfair for Lavelle to have to compete against the affluent class of … public teachers!! And the Dems just keep giving them MORE advantages, like forgiveness from their oppressive student loans. j/k
The things that Lavelle truly can’t compete in is concerning integrity and good ideas.
Simpler and his PAC’s finances are absolutely lousy. The info in the articles is just a very shallow look at his activities.
BUT! I’m also really embarrassed that our state has such a pitiful process for reviewing campaign finance reports because these issues are very very easy to spot for anyone to take the time to review them. Plus, these are not the exception; there are plenty of inconsistencies that SHOULD be caught and fined in EVERY reporting period. In a Post-Citizens United world of elections, the public’s one piece of trust in the process is via transparency so it’s vital that our officials enforce those finance report laws.
its only illegal if THEY do it
BTW, here is the bill in question. Lavelle was still in the House, and he voted no. The Senate approved the bill unanimously:
https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?legislationId=21575
Lavelle knew what was in that bill alright. He even sponsored an amendment that was defeated.
Curious, is the issue that the PAC does not disclose its donors? That’s the only way the pieces would be a violation, unless it was clear electioneering involved “Vote for”. Asking for a friend.
Illegal Collusion and electioneering are obviously the issues. Why don’t you read the fucking post sometime?
I guess she wasn’t as curious as she let on.
Haha.
A candidate’s campaign committee is totally prohibited from accepting donations over a certain amount ($600 for non-statewide office; $1200 for statewide office) BUT PACs do not have the same limitations. To prevent candidates from using / abusing a PAC’s fundraising freedom to subvert the candidate’s committee’s limitations, it’s illegal for a candidate’s committee to coordinate at all with a PAC. If a PAC wants to support a particular candidate, then that PAC has to do it on an island.
PACs do disclose their donors BUT if I form a shell company, then use that shell company to donate to a PAC, then we don’t really know who is ultimately funding a PAC. This is why it’s important to cross reference the entities and addresses on campaign finance reports with parcels and business entities to figure out who is scamming the system.
From the latest First State First filing, here are the tools complicit with Lavelle’s scheme to use the PAC to funnel money past the $600 limit to a candidate’s committee:
– Castle PAC – $1,000
– David Sowa – $1,000
– Fancis Julian – $1,000
– Pete Hayward – $1,200
– Robert Fraser – $2,000
– William D’Alonzo – $2,500
What’s interesting is that there may be people who knew what was going on and didn’t want to violate the law themselves: David Saunders and Richard Abbott only contributed the max limit of $600. I believe part of the campaign finance law is that it’s illegal for the DONOR to knowing make contributions that exceed the legal limits so Mr. Saunders and Abbott donated the max limit for Lavelle’s office because they may have known about the scheme but were not willing to put their necks on the line.
It is times like this when I think that it sure would be nice to have a newspaper in this state.
In other words, Castle PAC, for instance, could plead ignorance and avoid sanctions?
Yeah, they can easily say they understood the PAC to be what it purported to be, a PAC, and not Lavelle’s scheme of re-directing money to his campaigning efforts.
If you want a good time, compare the 2016 filings for “FirstStateFirst PAC” to “FirstStateFirst PAC Third Party Advertiser.” Especially FirstStateFirst PAC’s 11/3/16 Amended Report. The whole thing is a mess showing they don’t even know what account they’re using to do what. I only scanned it but it looks like there’s inconsistent amounts being reported between the two.
On a parallel track, Republican State Auditor Tom Wagner just appointed James “I will be an independent Auditor” Spadola to the vacant Deputy Auditor position vacated by Kathy Davies, who Wagner fired. Spadola will be paid to work “part time” so he can campaign about his “independence”. Wagner gave $900 to the Spadola campaign too. I didn’t know the State had such part time positions.
Still wondering about who released information about Davies and why??
FOIA TIME!!!! Let’s request records for the appointment and Spadola’s email account and calendar.
Source? Need verification.
It is posted at Delawareonline
Matt Bittle posted
Just got it from Tom Lehman at WBOC. Holy FUCK.
I, uh, don’t think this will go over well…
This deserves its own post. Working on it…
Maybe now Kathy Davies’ supporters who have been helping Spadola will realize who the real enemy is- anyone running as an R