Mark Green’s Campaign Will Have to Give Back Half a Million Dollars in Illegal Campaign Contributions
Doh!
The state Elections Board today told Republican gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Mark Green to return $467,844 in donations from political action committees not registered in Wisconsin – money Green had transferred from his federal campaign fund in 2005.
On several 5-2 votes, the board upheld a complaint from the non-profit Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, which said the Green campaign’s transfer of almost $1.3 million from his federal fund to a state fund violated several campaign-finance laws.
If Rep. Mark Green can’t be bothered to keep his own campaign’s books in order, how do you think he’d do as Governor of Wisconsin?
His response should be interesting. I’ve got him blaming “Angry partisan Democratic bloggers” with 3-2 odds.
Comments are closed.
You complain about THIS!? OMG – where are your Doyle contribution complaints. Holy mackeral .. try to be somewhat objective.
Just some interesting tidbits about the subject:
1) The Elections Board voted 5 – 2
4 Democrats voted it was illegal
1 Libertarian voted it was illegal
2 Republicans voted it was legal
** An obvious Non-partisian vote! ;)
2) This money was transferred the day prior to the new rule making this type of contribution illegal, so it’s certainly debatable whether this is legal or not.
3) Democrats only want this to be illegal so Green can fall farther behind to buy the governership … er, um, be elected.
Doyle didn’t move Federal PAC money to his state election campaign, so how does it compare again? Oh, you’re still surprised that a governor took campaign contributions from people working for a company that was bidding on state contracts. Trust me, the Journal Sentinel has been doing a great job trying to blow that story out of proportion all on it’s own.
Oh, and how did he transfer it a ‘day prior’? His campaign manager said on the news tonite that they spent the money before then, so they have nothing to return… I’m anxious to see whether this gets a front page headline like someone at a manufacturing company giving Doyle $200 does.
Do you think there are some contributions to Jim Doyle’s campaign were illegal or shady?
Well 3 Oracle employees who did not reside in WI each gave Jim Doyle’s campaign $1000 on 6/21/2005. That sure looks fishy to me. While this could be because they thought Doyle would be more likely push for consumer protection or contract laws that would be in their benefit, I think it is a lot more likely that they were hoping to get more State contracts than if they didn’t kick back some money to his campaign.
Frankly, I’m not talking about Jim Doyle here. I’m talking about Rep. Mark Green, and the constant attempts to shift blame are getting old.
Frankly, I’m not talking about Jim Doyle here. I’m talking about Rep. Mark Green, and the constant attempts to shift blame are getting old.
Well, I am not trying to shift blame … what I am trying to do is find out how objective you are trying to be. The reason I brought up Doyle is that he is in some hot water of his own, but you NEVER mentioned it. Why not?
I noticed an ad the other day that suggested Green’s close association with Bush was a reason to vote for someone else. (I didn’t note who paid for the commercial, but presumably it was someone backing Doyle.) Normally candidates use support of a sitting president as an aid to their campaign. But at least some people think that Bush’s popularity is so bad that they are now using this against a candidate.
Yeah: What hot water is Doyle in again? You mean this? I know it makes conservatives mad that they and the Journal Sentinel keep throwing allegations at the Governor that don’t stick, but how does Doyle compare to Green in this example?
It’s not about me and how objective you think I am or am not, it’s about the fact that you’re following the Green campaign trick here of assigning blame to everyone except Rep. Mark Green himself.
Bruno: that’s been a long running campaign tactic of the DPW.. on order of the last 9 months or so. And why shouldn’t Rep. Green be tied to Bush?
I probably just didn’t notice the ads previously. I don’t have a problem with them doing it, I was just noting it was unusual. I think it is a lot more common for the candidate rather than their opposition to point out an association with the sitting President.
Right, that’s been the historical norm.. But then again, George W. Bush is a historically bad President.
This whole issue was politically driven. The original group that brought the complaint is a leftwing group and then look at the slanted vote, it was all about politics. They became worried that Green was overtaking doyle and they had to do something to save the man. Just typical cheap politics from the left.
Right. Just because the group that filed the complaint was liberal, the entire judgement is in question. A slight variation on the “It’s everyones fault but Rep. Green’s” defense, and just as ridiculous.
File This under the “didn’t see that coming” folder.
From the article, “A lawyer for Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle’s campaign repeatedly lobbied three Democratic members of the State Elections Board before they voted with the majority to order Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Green to divest $467,844 in donations from out-of-state political action committees, records show.”
REALLY clean government from the Doyle camp again.
See comment directly above your last one.
Right … Doyle’s cronies lobbied the “independent” elections board. I read that.
Just because the group that filed the complaint was liberal, the entire judgement is in question. A slight variation on the “It’s everyones fault but Rep. Green’s” defense, and just as ridiculous.
It’s anybody’s but Rep. Green’s fault.
Apply. Rinse. Repeat.
No no no .. I don’t think you read the article from the JS. It’s not the people that filed the complaint – it’s that Doyle’s lawyer lobbied the elections board to vote a certain way.
If you don’t think that’s crooked I am saddened.