Sunday, August 31, 2008
66 HILLARY CLINTON PRAISES SARAH PALIN, BARACK OBAMA SNUBS
Hat Tip to my YouTube Buddy Lonnie @ ConservativeVoiceUSA
American Minute - Aug. 31 - John Bunyan & Pilgrim's Progress
American Minutewith Bill Federer
Imprisoned twelve years for preaching without a license from the King, he wrote Pilgrim's Progress, an allegory of a man named Christian fleeing the City of Destruction and directed by Evangelist to follow a narrow path to the City of Zion.
The friends and dangers he meets along the way inspired the modern story Wizard of Oz.
This classic was written by John Bunyan, who died AUGUST 31, 1688.
It was translated into over a hundred languages and found in nearly every colonial American home.
Ronald Reagan, greeting Australia's Prime Minister, June 30, 1981, said:
"Robert Louis Stevenson wrote, 'We are all travelers in what John Bunyan calls the wilderness of this world. And the best that we find in our travels is an honest friend-they keep us worthy of ourselves.'"
Franklin Roosevelt said January 19, 1936:
"When Theodore Roosevelt died, the Secretary of his class at Harvard, in sending classmates a notice of his passing, added this quotation from Pilgrim's Progress:
'My sword I give to him that shall succeed me in my pilgrimage, and my courage and skill to him that can get it.
My marks and scars I carry with me, to be a witness for me that I have fought His battles who now will be my rewarder.'"
Barack Obama's Half-Brother, George, Lives in Kenya
Hat Tip to my YouTube friendkeepnolahonestFrom keepnolahonest: Barack Obama's half-brother, George Obama, lives in Kenya. Barack Obama does not have a relationship with or speak to his half-brother. Neighbors feel Barack Obama should visit brother and see how he lives. They feel he should help him improve his way of life.
American Minute - Aug. 30 - Benedict Arnold
American Minutewith Bill Federer
One of America's greatest generals for capturing Fort Ticonderoga with Ethan Allen and leading the charge at Saratoga, he felt unappreciated, so AUGUST 30, 1780, General Benedict Arnold conspired with British General Clinton to surrender West Point for 20,000 pounds, equivalent to one million dollars today.
The British courier was Major John Andre, who had met Arnold's wife in Philadelphia.
As Andre tried to cross to the British lines, he was searched, found with the blue prints for West Point in his boot and executed.
Arnold escaped on the ship Vulture.
George Washington wrote September 26, 1780:
"Treason of the blackest dye was yesterday discovered! General Arnold who commanded at West Point, was about to...give the American cause a deadly wound if not fatal stab...
Its discovery affords the most convincing proof that the Liberties of America are the object of divine Protection."
On May 8, 1783, Yale President Ezra Stiles stated:
"A providential miracle at the last minute detected the treacherous scheme of traitor Benedict Arnold, which would have delivered the American army, including George Washington himself, into the hands of the enemy."
American Minute - George Washington and Cherokee & Delaware Indians
American Minutewith Bill Federer
"Beloved Cherokees," wrote President Washington on AUGUST 29, 1796,
"The wise men of the United States meet once a year, to consider what will be for the good of their people...I have thought that a meeting of your wise men...would be alike useful to you...
I now send my best wishes to the Cherokees and pray the Great Spirit to preserve them."
On May 12, 1779, Washington addressed the Delaware Indian Chiefs at the Middle Brook military encampment:
"Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us...Congress...will look upon them as their own Children."
Washington continued:
"This is a great mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship between the Two Nations...and to become One people with your Brethren of the United States...
You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are."
Washington concluded:
"Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it...
I pray God He may make your Nation wise and strong."
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Hoo-ah: USAF Making Combat Experience Count
The U.S. Air Force has been using combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to get as many of their combat pilots some combat experience as they can. This ensures that the air force will end up with the largest number of combat experienced pilots for over a decade after the fighting ends. It's a big deal, for a pilot, to earn combat wings. And the large number of these pilots has changed the way the air force fights, and trains new pilots to fight.Pilots who have been in combat know, from experience, exactly how all those standard procedures, drummed into new pilots, or practiced endlessly by peacetime pilots, should really be carried out. Combat clears away a lot of administrative deadwood and dangerous busywork. This knowledge, once passed on to a new pilot, or one who has not been in combat, makes that pilot much better once they do get into a combat zone. All this is nothing new. Back in World War II, it was discovered that training new pilots for combat, went much better if the instructors were combat veterans.
The World War II experience made a lot of how much more effective new pilots were, the more hours they had spent in the air during training. That was because it was so easy just count the hours of air time, and combat performance, and do a regression analysis. It was harder to quantify the combat experience of the instructors, but starting in the 1960s, after the unexpectedly dismal showing of U.S. pilots early in the Vietnam war, the combat pilot community learned how to quantify combat experience, and how to use it when available.
Lights Are Going Out All Over Europe
European nations are alarmed at the recent increase in probes, via the Internet, of public utilities (electricity, water, sewage, transportation). Cyber War experts are divided on whether this is just the next big thing in criminal activity (finding out how to shut down utilities via the Internet, then using the threat of that to extort money), or military Cyber War operations, scouting utilities in anticipation of damaging them in wartime or a time of crises.A lot of these probes can be traced back to the usual sources (China, Eastern Europe and the Middle East), the places where many of the Internet based criminal gangs hide out. So far this year, there has been an increase in probes, but not attacks. At least as far as anyone knows. However, the most professional Internet attacks are unnoticed (as the intruder gets away with data, or a deep understanding of how the target site operates, and thus a good knowledge of how to take it down.) Utilities, and large corporations in general, are being urged (and sometimes ordered) to check, and double check, the adequacy of their Internet defenses.
Hoo-ah: More Stryker Mobile Gun System
The U.S. Army has ordered 62 more M1128 Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) vehicles , at a cost of about $5.3 million each. The vehicle has a 105mm gun turret mounted on it, as well as a 12.7mm and 7.62mm machine-gun. It weighs 19 tons. The vehicle has a crew of three, and carries 18 rounds for the 105mm gun, 400 for the 12.7mm machine-gun, and 3,400 for the 7.62mm machine-gun.The army sent the first of its Stryker Mobile Gun Systems to Iraq last year. The gun has an automatic loader. The gun is stabilized, and can be fired on the move. Once in Iraq, the gun performed well, providing accurate and effective firepower when needed. There were some problems, however.
In order to get all the gear needed for a 105mm gun into a Stryker vehicle, there was no room for air conditioning. In summertime Iraq, this presents a problem. The three man crew had to be equipped with something that would prevent heat stroke.
The solution was the "air conditioned suit" of legend, and science fiction. Back in 2003, after three years of development, the U.S. Army put into service the "Air Warrior Microclimate Cooling System." It's a vest full of tiny tubes that carry cooled water (with some non-toxic antifreeze added). Worn under the flak jacket, it keeps the trunk of the wearer cool, thus greatly reducing the "heat load" and potential for heat stroke or heat fatigue. It was originally meant to be used by pilots in smaller (un-air-conditioned) helicopters or door gunners of larger choppers.
Friday, August 29, 2008
OKLAHOMA ETHICS COMMISSION PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS
This is why I blog: Oklahoma NEED a Sarah Palin for Governor in 2010 !
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 29, 2008
ETHICS COMMISSION PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS REPRESENTATIVE LANCE CARGILL, THE REPUBLICAN STATE HOUSE COMMITTEE AND THE OKLAHOMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE FOR MULTIPLE ETHICS RULE VIOLATIONS
The Ethics Commission today announced that it has publically reprimanded REPRESENTATIVE LANCE CARGILL, the REPUBLICAN STATE HOUSE COMMITTEE and the OKLAHOMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE for multiple violations of the Constitutional Ethics Rules [“the Rules”], Section 257:1-1-1 et seq. of the Rules of the Ethics Commission, 74 O.S. Supp. 2008, Ch. 62, App.
The basis of the reprimand was stated as follows:
Simply put, this is a case of the redirection of campaign contributions intended for one party committee, to another, contrary to the intent of the donors. It resulted in the contributors being made to support candidates against their conscience and in violation of several provisions of the Ethics Rules, which are designed to safeguard campaigns in Oklahoma.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND, Statement Of The Case, 2 ¶, at p.1nd
The facts were that surplus campaign checks given by certain Republican Members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, intended for the “Victory Fund” of the Oklahoma Republican Party [“State Party”] to support the State Party’s agenda and roster of candidates, were re-routed to the Oklahoma County Republican Committee [“OCRC” or “County Party”] and used for an entirely different slate of candidates and purposes, contrary to the indent of the donors. The reprimand document describes the activity in detail.
The Ethics Commission unanimously voted to issue the reprimand at its regular meeting held August 22, 2008, subject to the Chairman’s approval of the final draft of the document. The document was today approved for dissemination to the public and the respondents, per their attorneys of record.
Following a thorough investigation, the Commission found that the material facts were not in dispute, nor was the controlling authority. There was a deliberate intent to circumvent the law.
The Commission relied upon the testimony of four members of the House of Representatives who were surprised to learn that checks they had written to the State Party Victory Fund for ORP causes and candidates had, contrary to their will, ended up in the coffers of the County Party.
The Ethics Commission is currently made up of Chairman Don Bingham, appointed by then-Speaker Larry Adair as the appointee of the Speaker of the House of Representatives; Vice Chairman John Raley, appointee of Attorney General Drew Edmondson; James Loy, appointee of then-Chief Justice Joseph Watt of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; and Jo Pettigrew, appointee of Governor Brad Henry.
The Ethics Commission was empowered by a constitutional amendment passed in 1990 to promulgate and enforce civil penalty rules of ethical conduct for state officers and employees, as well as for state campaigns. It is authorized under Article 29, Section 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution to investigate, and when it deems appropriate, prosecute violation of its ethics rules.
*******************************
http://www.ok.gov/oec/documents/IV-2007-008-PR.pdf
-CERTIFIED MAIL-
August 29, 2008
Representative Lance Cargill
% Robert McCampbell, Attorney of Record
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
20 N. Broadway, Suite 1800
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273
Republican State House Committee
% Todd A. McKinnis, Attorney of Record
Kirkpatrick Bank Building
15 E. Fifteenth Street, Suite 200
Edmond, OK 73083-1569
Oklahoma County Republican Committee
% Tom Prince, Attorney of Record
204 E. Second Street
Edmond, OK 73083-2911
RE: INFORMATION NUMBER IV-2007-008 / LETTER OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND
Lance Cargill, Member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives; Republican State House Committee, an Oklahoma Political Action Committee; and the Oklahoma County Republican Committee, an Oklahoma Party Committee; Respondents
TO ALL RESPONDENTS:
The Ethics Commission of the State of Oklahoma met in regular meeting August 22, 2008.
It considered this matter in executive session, as required by law. In open meeting, referring to it by number, the members unanimously voted to issue all referenced Respondents a public reprimand for five (5) separate counts of violations of the Rules of the Constitutional Ethics Commission [“the Rules”], Section 1-1-1 et seq. of the Rules of the Ethics Commission, 74 O.S. Supp. 2008, Ch. 62, App.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Simply put, this is a case of the redirection of campaign contributions intended for one party committee, to another, contrary to the intent of the donors. It resulted in the contributors being made to support candidates against their conscience and in violation of several provisions of the Ethics Rules, which are designed to safeguard campaigns in Oklahoma.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
PERMISSIBLE WAYS IN WHICH
CAMPAIGN DOLLARS MAY BE SPENT
Use of campaign funds is strictly regulated in this State. Such money may never be converted to personal use but, together with earned interest, must defray campaign expenditures.
The law also permits those elected to access these funds for “ordinary and necessary nonreimbursed officeholder expenses,” including payment of debts of his or her former election campaign, expenses in a future race, as well as political and community activity.
Use of campaign contributions and use of surplus funds
(a) Candidate committees.
(1) Use of campaign contributions. Contributions accepted by a candidate committee may not be converted by any person to any personal use, but shall be used, together with any interest income earned on such contributions, to defray any campaign expenditures or any ordinary and necessary nonreimbursed expenses incurred by the person in connection with his duties as a holder of the state office, including, but not limited to:
(A) payment of debts of a former election campaign of the same candidate,
(B) payment of expenses for use in a future election campaign of the same candidate,
(C) for political activity,
(D) for community activity or
(E) for nonreimbursed office related expenses.
Said contributions shall not be used for any other purposes except as permitted in Paragraph (3) of this subsection.
* * *
Sec
tion 257:10-1-20(a)(1)
The Rules also specify use of surplus campaign funds – meaning the unexpended balance, not otherwise obligated for campaign debts. Those may be spent for:
* * *
(3) Use of surplus funds. The surplus funds may:
(A) be deposited with the State Treasurer to the credit of the
General Revenue Fund;
(B) be returned to the contributors pursuant to any formula approved by the candidate; provided, any amount returned to a contributor shall not exceed the amount of the original contribution;
(C) be contributed to a charitable organization;
(D) be retained by the candidate or candidate committee for use in a future election for a six-year period following the General Election for the same or a different office;
(E) be used to defend legal actions or proceedings arising out of the campaign, election, or the performance of the candidate's official
duties as a state officer; provided that such funds shall not be used to
defend criminal charges;
(F) be used for a community activity;
(G) be used for political activity;
(H) be transferred to the state or local central committee of a political party; or
(I) be distributed using a combination of these options.
* * *
Id., (3) [emphasis added]
The Rules thus permit a candidate’s surplus campaign funds to be transferred to the state or local central committee of a political party.
REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBERS TRANSFER SURPLUS CAMPAIGN FUNDSTO THE STATE PARTY “VICTORY FUND”
During the months of September and October in the 2004 election cycle, then-Minority Leader Todd Hiett [Hiett”] solicited campaign funds from sitting members of the Republican Caucus of the Oklahoma House of Representatives [“Republican House members”]. He asked that contributions of surplus campaign funds be made to the State Party’s “Victory Fund.”
The latter was a designated portion of ORP’s state bank account. It was used for “get-out-the vote” efforts, voter registration drives, party advertising and to help elect Republicans to state and federal office. The fund was held and operated exclusively by the Oklahoma Republican Party [“ORP” or “Republican State Party” or “State Party”]. Hiett’s solicitation was thus in accordance with Rules’ Section 257:10-1-20(a)(3)(H).
Those solicited understood that their Victory Fund contributions would be spent according to decisions made by appropriate committees and officers of the Republican State Party. The Chairman of the latter was, and is, Gary Jones [“Jones”]. Jones explained that, according to internal rules, State Party support is never the decision of a handful of people, but of many, drawn from various levels of the party. Jones said the goal is to have broad representation on the committee which decides.
THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY PURSUES
A BROAD-BASED AGENDA
The Victory Fund was to promote a statewide Republican effort in the 2004 elections. As noted, it encompassed a statewide voter registration drive and “get-out-the-vote” campaign. It included party advertising.
RSHC members were told that a “rising tide lifts all boats.” In other words, these measures would benefit every Republican on the ballot.
The State Party also supported certain ORP-selected state and federal candidates. Its roster included those seeking statewide office, as well as federal candidates. For instance, former- Congressman Tom Coburn received State Party support in his bid for a United States Senate seat.
COUNTY PARTIES ADVANCE
A MORE MODEST AGENDA
County parties direct their efforts in different ways. Their means are more modest, as are their goals. Even the larger ones – like those in Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties – raise far less money than does the State counterpart. County Party committees support fewer candidates.
Historically, they focus on local races. While not confined to such, they often concentrate on county elections or candidates to the State Legislature who represent areas within their borders.
Oklahoma County Republican Committee [“OCRC” or “Oklahoma County Party” or “County Party”] is a large County Party. It is an active one. Nonetheless, that entity did not fund statewide “get-out-the-vote” campaigns. It did not support candidates for federal office.
Its agenda did not mirror that of the State Republican Party. Its interests were narrower. Until 2004, OCRC may have occasionally contributed outside of Oklahoma County, but its focus was upon candidates representing districts within its boundaries.
The State and County Republican Parties therefore did not share agendas. Given what later transpired, their interests in 2004 were actually adverse.
CARGILL’S ROLE IN THE 2004 CAMPAIGNS
Representative Lance Cargill [“Cargill”] participated in the 2004 Victory Fund solicitation of Republican House members. He did this in his individual capacity. But, in reality, According to the Rules, Cargill could not serve as the official chairman of RSHC1 without committee contributions counting against his personal campaign limits. It was thus necessary for another to serve as titular committee chairman.
The total amount of Republican House member surplus fund-contributions to the Victory2 Funds was $44,000.
Several Republican House members later issued a joint statement that they did not mind3 that their donations were re-directed to the County – as opposed to the State – Republican Party Committee. The Commission notes that, when tendering a campaign contribution, present donative intent controls. A subsequent declaration does not change the payee. he acted as the “de facto” Chairman of the Republican State House Committee [“RSHC” or “House PAC”]. Several of those solicited thought he, in fact, headed RSHC.1
The operation was successful. Pursuant to the Victory Fund solicitation, the following House members wrote checks from their surplus funds to the State Party. Checks were written on the cited dates and in these amounts:
Cargill for the House Committee (9/14/04), $1,500; Friends of Don Armes
Committee (9/04/04), $1,000 and (10/06/04), $3,000; Friends of Chris Benge Committee (9/13/04), $3,500; Mark Liotta for State Rep. Committee (9/14/04), $5,000; Todd Hiett for State Rep. Committee (10/15/04), $5,000; Newport State Rep. Committee (10/18/04), $1,000; Friends of John Smaligo Committee (10/15/04), $3,000; Friends of John Smaligo Committee (10/22/04), $2,000; Friends of Raymond Vaughn Committee, $5,000; Friends of Susan Winchester Committee, $3,000; John Trebilcock for State House Committee (10/11/04), $3,500; Friends of Ron Peters Committee (10/11/04), $4,000; Committee to Re-Elect Fred Perry (10/6/04), $1,000; Friends for Dale Dewitt 2004 Committee (10/8/04), $2,500. 2
At the point of tendering these instruments, House members intended them for the State Party, since it alone had the “Victory Fund.” 3 But, the checks were diverted. Instead of the State Party – as was intended by the donors – they ended up in the coffers of the OCRC.
The reason was clear. Cargill told members that 2004 was the year the Republicans could win a majority of seats in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Like all elections, success requires money. Cargill felt that Victory Fund money raised from House members should be spent on House races. Operatives appeared at State Party headquarters with some House members’
All checks were made payable to the “Oklahoma Republican Party,” except the4 following: Two checks from Smaligo were designated: “Republican Party.” Representative Fred Perry left blank the name of the payee. Representative Jim Newport was asked for a second check to replace the first. The latter – and it alone – was made out to “Oklahoma County Republican Party.” Representative Mark Liotta’s check bore a memo which stated: “Victory Fund Campaign Contribution” – consistent with his making the check to the “Oklahoma State Republican Party.”
After-the-fact, the word “State” was crossed out and “County” was written in, instead. campaign checks, together with a list of where those funds should be spent. Jones reluctantly permitted it on an emergency basis, but then stopped the practice. His position was that Victory Fund money was to be spent on Victory Fund – meaning statewide – efforts, and not confined to carefully selected House races.
This posed a problem. As noted, the Rules permit transferring surplus campaign funds to a State or Central Committee of a political party – not a PAC, like RSHC. Since the ORP had declined to earmark House-raised funds for expenditures in certain House races, another party committee was needed. Al Mertens, then serving as OCRC Chairman, agreed to accommodate the Cargill/RSHC plan. The OCRC board later acquiesced.
ORP VICTORY FUND CHECKS
ARE ROUTED TO THE COUNTY PARTY
The County Party received the above- listed donations intended for the ORP Victory Fund.
It began paying for polling, compensation of campaign workers called “Field Reps,” and other expenses associated with select House races.
While the record supports a broader finding, the Commission has chosen to base its case upon the testimony of four Republican House members who have maintained throughout they never intended donations of their surplus campaign funds to go anywhere but the State Republican Party.
Those four are: Hiett, Representative Susan Winchester [“Winchester”], former Representative Ray Vaughn [“Vaughn”] and Representative John Trebilcock [“Trebilcock”].
The surplus campaign checks – including the checks of these four – were either collected from Republican House members by Cargill and/or his designees, agents or employees. Or, they were mailed to the State Party, but somehow ended up with titular Chairman of RSHC, Aaron Curry [“Curry”]. These surplus campaign checks were made payable to “ORP, the “Oklahoma Republican Party” or a variation of that name – with the intent that the funds go to the State Party.4 A number of Rule violations ensued.
RULE VIOLATIONS
COUNT ONE
The Rules require those gathering or receiving contributions to provide them to the payee’s treasurer within five (5) days of receipt. The State Republican Party Treasurer never received them.
In gathering Republican House members’ checks to the Victory Fund, Cargill and RSHC were jointly and severally charged with providing these instruments to the State Party treasurer within five days. This was never done, in violation of Rules’ Section 257:10-1-10(d), which provides:
Campaign depositories and campaign accounts
* * *
(d) All contributions, other than in-kind contributions, accepted by the committee,
directly or indirectly, shall be deposited in a campaign account within ten (10) days after
acceptance. All contributions received by a deputy treasurer or agent of the committee,
including the candidate, on behalf of a committee shall be provided to the treasurer or,
in the treasurer's absence, the deputy treasurer not later than five (5) days after receipt.
* * *
Section 257:10-1-10
COUNT TWO
Certain of these House member checks were tendered without a Contributor Statement.
Contributions of John Trebilcock and Ray Vaughn were not accompanied by the Statement. Nor has any been provided to date, because neither ever filled out nor signed the form.
Both checks were cashed in the absence of a Contributor Statement. Their contributions were therefore accepted, and deposited, in violation of Rules’ Section 257:10-1-2(c). Contributions
* * *
(c) Contributor statement. Within ten (10) business days of accepting a single
contribution exceeding fifty dollars ($50.00), or before accepting multiple contributions from a single source which exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) in the aggregate, persons accepting contributions must obtain from each contributor a statement which shall include:
(1) the date the contribution was given;
(2) the name and address, occupation [e.g."retail sales clerk"] and
employer [e.g. "Dillard"], or principal business activity of the contributor; a contribution from a person other than an individual or a committee shall be reported by the name of the person or committee and not the individual who signed the check;
(3) the amount; if in-kind, a description of the contribution and a good faith estimate of its fair market value;
(4) a declaration that the contribution is for a campaign in the State of Oklahoma, and the contribution is freely and voluntarily given from the contributor's personal property, if an individual, or the person or committee's property, if other than an individual;
(5) a declaration that the contributor has not been directly or indirectly compensated or reimbursed for the contribution, if an individual, and, if a person other than an individual or a committee, that the person or committee has not been compensated or reimbursed for the contribution by persons:
(A) other than those from whom contributor statements have been received and of whom disclosure has or will be made; or
(B) if from persons exempted from the definition of political action committee, by other persons; and
(6) the signature of the contributor, or in the case of a committee, the treasurer or, in the treasurer's absence, the deputy treasurer of the committee.
Persons accepting contributions from contributors who contribute by payroll deduction, dues check-off, or similar process shall be required to obtain only one contributor statement annually or at such other times as a change is made in the deduction, check- off, or similar process.
Section 257:10-1-2(c)
COUNT THREE
Curry offered OCRC the campaign checks with the stipulation that the funds be used to pay specified expenses incurred by RSHC. Expenses included background research into opposing candidates by the law firm of Hartzog, Conger et al., polling by Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Associates for a 300-sample survey, "brushfire polls" conducted by Lowther & Shapard in certain races, and various salaries or fees of Field Reps or consultants. Earmarking contributions to pay expenditures for the benefit of certain candidates violated the provisions of Rules’ Section 257:10-1-
2(j)(2) as follows:
Contributions
(j) Anonymous and earmarked contributions.
* * *
(2) For purposes of the contribution limitations imposed by this section, all contributions made by a person, either directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of a particular candidate committee, including contributions which are in any way earmarked or otherwise directed through an intermediary or conduit to such candidate committee, shall be treated as contributions from such person to such candidate committee. It shall be prohibited for an intermediary or a conduit to make a contribution to a committee in his or her own name rather than the name of the original source of such contribution. For purposes of this paragraph, an intermediary or conduit means a person, who is not the treasurer, deputy treasurer or agent of a committee, but who is given a contribution by another with the understanding that it will be contributed to that committee. The reports shall show the correct name of the person actually
making the contribution.
* * *
Section 257:10-1-2(j)(2)
As noted, after accommodating no more than two requests on an emergency basis, Jones declined to permit RSHC to earmark Victory Funds for specific races. It was this decision that caused the House PAC to turn to OCRC to do its bidding.
COUNT FOUR
Cargill, RSHC and OCRC then devised a scheme whereby RSHC would circumvent the State Party and direct how the surplus funds were spent. They were aware that surplus candidate campaign funds may not be used as contributions to political action committees [“PACs”]. That precluded depositing the funds in RSHC. They were also aware that, under Section 257:10-1- 20(3)(H), the Rules permit surplus campaign funds to be transferred to the state or local central committee of a political party.
Use of campaign contributions and use of surplus funds
(a) Candidate committees.
* * *
(3) Use of surplus funds. The surplus funds may:
* * *
(H) be transferred to the state or local central committee of a political
party; or
* * *
Section 257:10-1-20(a)(3)(H)
In violation of this rule, Respondents planned to deposit these checks into a county party and have it pay expenses they or RSHC incurred to support their hand-picked candidate campaigns. The plan included earmarking contributions by limiting how the funds might be spent. The County Party was to function as an intermediary or conduit.
Cargill at first considered the Creek County Republican Party as the intermediary/conduit. OCRC was chosen, instead. The matter was discussed with OCRC then-Chairman Al Mertens [“Mertens”] who agreed. Curry – or his agent, employee or designee – delivered all or part of the above listed checks to OCRC, along with the specific bills and invoices the County Party was to pay.
Rules’ Section 257:10-1-10(d) requires that contributions accepted by an agent of a committee be turned over to the treasurer, or deputy treasurer, within five days of receipt. If directly or indirectly accepted by a committee, the rule then requires the money be deposited in the committee’s campaign account within ten (10) days after such acceptance. As noted, Curry, who accepted the checks from Cargill, failed to timely deliver the checks to the State Party’s treasurer – or deputy treasurer – within five days of receipt in violation of Section 257:10-1-10(d). Instead, he presented them to Mertens, who caused them to be deposited, illegally, in OCRC’s account.
OCRC thus violated this provision.
Outside the lawful time line for acceptance, the County Party not only deposited these checks, it began paying for political consultants, polls and Field Rep’s – expenses incurred by Cargill/RSHC in furtherance of their plan to use State Party money, not for the ORP roster, but earmarking the funds to help elect their personal choice of candidates.
A key part of the scheme was that OCRC was to act as the conduit for RSHC. As noted, the County Party was to accept money from Victory Fund contributors and pay bills to support designated candidates.
Under Section 257:10-1-2(j), contributions which are in any way directed through an intermediary, or conduit, to a candidate committee in its name – rather than the name of the original source – are treated as contributions from the true donor. This means that RSHC checks given to candidates – together with its expenses incurred to assist these candidates (paid for by OCRC) – counted against RSHC’s contribution limits.
COUNT FIVE
Curry served both as RSHC Chair and Treasurer from January 5, 2003 to January 28, 2005.
Jenny Parton [“Parton”] then took over both positions. Parton continued in her dual role until October 17, 2006, when she was replaced by Carolyn Pickthorn [“Pickthorn”], who likewise served as Chair and Treasurer. According to Ethics Commission records, Pickthorn continues in these capacities to date. All have certified the RSHC Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reports [“Form C-1R”]. These C-1Rs are inaccurate, in that they fail to include the funds involved in the conduit scheme. All are thus in violation of Rules’ Section 257:10-1-14(a)(3) and (20) which
provide.
Report contents
(a) Basic reporting form. The campaign contributions and expenditures report shall include:
* * *
(3) the following information about monetary contributions, including
loans accepted from a person other than a committee:
(A) the total sum of all contributions accepted during
the current reporting period . . .
(B) the total of contributions accepted for the
campaign-to-date or calendar year-to-date . . .
* * *
(20) the signature, or typed signature on electronically filed forms of the treasurer or, in the treasurer's absence, the deputy treasurer, who shall certify that prior to accepting any contribution requiring a contributor statement during this campaign-to-date for candidate committees or calendar year-to-date for other committees, the treasurer, or deputy treasurer in the treasurer’s absence, received a contributor statement therefor and who shall each attest to the report's accuracy and veracity. Within five (5) business days of the treasurer or deputy treasurer of a candidate committee filing a required report, the candidate, or the treasurer of a candidate committee for a candidate seeking judicial office, shall confirm in writing that the report filed was true and correct. The signature shall be verified. Section 257:10-1-14(a)(3) and (20)
In agreeing to this plan, Mertens and other OCRC officers joined Cargill/RSHC in contravening Rules’ Sections 257:10-1-10(d) and 10-1-2(j)(2). All checks, exceeding fifty dollars ($50.00), were accepted unlawfully by the treasurer of a different committee and in the absence of a Contributor Statement. As such, these checks were illegally accepted, deposited and spent by the County Party and were used to pay expenses incurred by RSHC.
From January 28, 2002 to July 6, 2006, Elizabeth A, Rolen [“Rolen”] served as OCRC Treasurer. In such capacity, she prepared and filed a series of C-1Rs on behalf of OCRC. She dated the form and, as treasurer of OCRC, signed her name to the following:
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the above is a true and correct compilation.
Prior to accepting a contribution requiring a contributor statement during this campaign or calendar year-to-date, the treasurer or deputy treasurer received a contributor statement therefor. . . FORM C-1R, Certification, at line 26 [emphasis added] OCRC violated Rules’ Section 257:10-1-14(a)(20) by filing a report in the absence of Contributor Statements. Each instance forms a separate count. OCRC also violated that provision when Rolen, as its treasurer, certified as correct totals – and campaign-to-date totals – which illegally included contributions that OCRC was not authorized to accept and did so without the mandatory Contributor Statements. Each instance of filing such a report also forms a separate count of a Rule 10-1-14(a)(20) violation.
Robert L. Bowman [“Bowman”] took over from Rolen on July 6, 2006. Ethics Commission records show he served as OCRC Treasurer from that time to October 1, 2007. As treasurer, he also prepared and filed C1-R reports which violated these same provisions. OCRC likewise violated Rules’ Section 257:10-1-14(a)(20) by certifying as correct totals, and campaign-to-date totals, which illegally included contributions without the Contributor Statement. Each instance of filing such a report constitutes a separate count of a Rule 10-1-14(a)(20) violation.
A C-1R report filed January 25, 2007 by Representative Mike Duane Jackson [“Jackson”], the Republican nominee in House District #40, listed an expenditure of $3,500 marked as contribution for voter recount. But, on May 17, 2007, Jackson filed an amended C1-R. It showed that a monetary transfer of $3,500 had been made on November 9, 2006 to OCRC. Jackson then deleted the expenditure of the same date for the voter recount. In this matter, Cargill/RSHC again utilized OCRC as a conduit/intermediary. The one solicited surplus funds for the other, so that the County Party might contribute the exact amount for use in the voter recount. In so doing, they again violated Rules’ Sections 257:10-1-2(a)(2) and 10-1-20(a)(H).
In addition, OCRC used House members’ surplus campaign funds to pay the following expenses: Cole Snodgrass Hargrave & Associates — House District [“HD”]13, Stuart Ericson, $2,700; HD45, Thad Balkman, $2,450; HD23, Sue Tibbs, $2,450; HD09, Tad Jones, $2,200; HD26, Kris Steele, $2,800; HD61, Gus Blackwell, $2,450 — less $5,000 "paid by PAC;" Party check #2,500 paid $10,550 toward these expenses. A facsimile transmittal from Veda Shapard, Lowther & Shapard, advised that Aaron Curry had instructed the forwarding of invoices ($500 each) to the Oklahoma County Republican Committee for payment of the following: brushfire polls for the races of HD 61 (Gus Blackwell), HD 13 (Stuart Ericson), HD 8 (Bill Kendrick), HD 12 (Mark Wofford), HD 22 (Preston Edgar), and HD 26 (Kris Steele). Bills from several consultants were also paid by the Oklahoma County Republican Party for candidates races well outside Oklahoma County.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE
The Commission has carried out the investigation of this information pursuant to its constitutional mandate to “investigate and, when it deems appropriate, prosecute” violations of its rules governing ethical conduct of state officers, employees and state campaigns. OKLA. CONST. Art.29, §4(A); §3(A) and (B) The instant proceeding has been conducted in accordance with Rules’ Chapter 30.
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The Commission has conducted a thorough investigation into this matter. It has interviewed witnesses, collected documents and searched records. It fully reviewed multiple aspects of this matter. The material facts are not in dispute.
The breadth of these facts, coupled with the complexity of the investigation, has caused the Commission to pursue the RSHC and OCRC committees, rather than their officers. Individuals’ names are required for purposes of the fact record.
JURISDICTION/VENUE
The Commission has and retains both in personam and subject matter jurisdiction over Respondents and all aspects of the conduct in question. The acts charged against Respondents occurred in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, where venue lies.
REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL
The Commission notes each Respondent was been apprised of the right to be represented by counsel. Each has been represented by counsel of his/their own choosing. Attorneys of record have been afforded the opportunity to reply to all allegations. All did, in fact, reply. Their responses were carefully reviewed and considered by the Commissioners.
REPRIMAND
This letter constitutes the Commission’s Public Reprimand of the Respondents for the cited rule violations. It does not speak to state statutes or provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution but, instead, is confined to the Rules which the Commission enforces.
The Commissioners are charged with enforcing ethical conduct of state officers, employees and campaigns in Oklahoma. This reprimand is the act of the full Commission and not of its staff.
It was authorized in open meeting by a unanimous vote of all four Commissioners. In accordance with agency policy, the final draft of this document was approved by the undersigned, in his capacity as Ethics Commission Chairman. A copy will be immediately provided to the Capitol Media Corps for public dissemination.
This concludes the matter.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AUGUST 29, 2008
ETHICS COMMISSION PUBLICLY REPRIMANDS REPRESENTATIVE LANCE CARGILL, THE REPUBLICAN STATE HOUSE COMMITTEE AND THE OKLAHOMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE FOR MULTIPLE ETHICS RULE VIOLATIONS
The Ethics Commission today announced that it has publically reprimanded REPRESENTATIVE LANCE CARGILL, the REPUBLICAN STATE HOUSE COMMITTEE and the OKLAHOMA COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE for multiple violations of the Constitutional Ethics Rules [“the Rules”], Section 257:1-1-1 et seq. of the Rules of the Ethics Commission, 74 O.S. Supp. 2008, Ch. 62, App.
The basis of the reprimand was stated as follows:
Simply put, this is a case of the redirection of campaign contributions intended for one party committee, to another, contrary to the intent of the donors. It resulted in the contributors being made to support candidates against their conscience and in violation of several provisions of the Ethics Rules, which are designed to safeguard campaigns in Oklahoma.
PUBLIC REPRIMAND, Statement Of The Case, 2 ¶, at p.1nd
The facts were that surplus campaign checks given by certain Republican Members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, intended for the “Victory Fund” of the Oklahoma Republican Party [“State Party”] to support the State Party’s agenda and roster of candidates, were re-routed to the Oklahoma County Republican Committee [“OCRC” or “County Party”] and used for an entirely different slate of candidates and purposes, contrary to the indent of the donors. The reprimand document describes the activity in detail.
The Ethics Commission unanimously voted to issue the reprimand at its regular meeting held August 22, 2008, subject to the Chairman’s approval of the final draft of the document. The document was today approved for dissemination to the public and the respondents, per their attorneys of record.
Following a thorough investigation, the Commission found that the material facts were not in dispute, nor was the controlling authority. There was a deliberate intent to circumvent the law.
The Commission relied upon the testimony of four members of the House of Representatives who were surprised to learn that checks they had written to the State Party Victory Fund for ORP causes and candidates had, contrary to their will, ended up in the coffers of the County Party.
The Ethics Commission is currently made up of Chairman Don Bingham, appointed by then-Speaker Larry Adair as the appointee of the Speaker of the House of Representatives; Vice Chairman John Raley, appointee of Attorney General Drew Edmondson; James Loy, appointee of then-Chief Justice Joseph Watt of the Oklahoma Supreme Court; and Jo Pettigrew, appointee of Governor Brad Henry.
The Ethics Commission was empowered by a constitutional amendment passed in 1990 to promulgate and enforce civil penalty rules of ethical conduct for state officers and employees, as well as for state campaigns. It is authorized under Article 29, Section 4 of the Oklahoma Constitution to investigate, and when it deems appropriate, prosecute violation of its ethics rules.
-30-
*******************************
http://www.ok.gov/oec/documents/IV-2007-008-PR.pdf
-CERTIFIED MAIL-
August 29, 2008
Representative Lance Cargill
% Robert McCampbell, Attorney of Record
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
20 N. Broadway, Suite 1800
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273
Republican State House Committee
% Todd A. McKinnis, Attorney of Record
Kirkpatrick Bank Building
15 E. Fifteenth Street, Suite 200
Edmond, OK 73083-1569
Oklahoma County Republican Committee
% Tom Prince, Attorney of Record
204 E. Second Street
Edmond, OK 73083-2911
RE: INFORMATION NUMBER IV-2007-008 / LETTER OF PUBLIC REPRIMAND
Lance Cargill, Member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives; Republican State House Committee, an Oklahoma Political Action Committee; and the Oklahoma County Republican Committee, an Oklahoma Party Committee; Respondents
TO ALL RESPONDENTS:
The Ethics Commission of the State of Oklahoma met in regular meeting August 22, 2008.
It considered this matter in executive session, as required by law. In open meeting, referring to it by number, the members unanimously voted to issue all referenced Respondents a public reprimand for five (5) separate counts of violations of the Rules of the Constitutional Ethics Commission [“the Rules”], Section 1-1-1 et seq. of the Rules of the Ethics Commission, 74 O.S. Supp. 2008, Ch. 62, App.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Simply put, this is a case of the redirection of campaign contributions intended for one party committee, to another, contrary to the intent of the donors. It resulted in the contributors being made to support candidates against their conscience and in violation of several provisions of the Ethics Rules, which are designed to safeguard campaigns in Oklahoma.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
PERMISSIBLE WAYS IN WHICH
CAMPAIGN DOLLARS MAY BE SPENT
Use of campaign funds is strictly regulated in this State. Such money may never be converted to personal use but, together with earned interest, must defray campaign expenditures.
The law also permits those elected to access these funds for “ordinary and necessary nonreimbursed officeholder expenses,” including payment of debts of his or her former election campaign, expenses in a future race, as well as political and community activity.
Use of campaign contributions and use of surplus funds
(a) Candidate committees.
(1) Use of campaign contributions. Contributions accepted by a candidate committee may not be converted by any person to any personal use, but shall be used, together with any interest income earned on such contributions, to defray any campaign expenditures or any ordinary and necessary nonreimbursed expenses incurred by the person in connection with his duties as a holder of the state office, including, but not limited to:
(A) payment of debts of a former election campaign of the same candidate,
(B) payment of expenses for use in a future election campaign of the same candidate,
(C) for political activity,
(D) for community activity or
(E) for nonreimbursed office related expenses.
Said contributions shall not be used for any other purposes except as permitted in Paragraph (3) of this subsection.
* * *
Sec
tion 257:10-1-20(a)(1)
The Rules also specify use of surplus campaign funds – meaning the unexpended balance, not otherwise obligated for campaign debts. Those may be spent for:
* * *
(3) Use of surplus funds. The surplus funds may:
(A) be deposited with the State Treasurer to the credit of the
General Revenue Fund;
(B) be returned to the contributors pursuant to any formula approved by the candidate; provided, any amount returned to a contributor shall not exceed the amount of the original contribution;
(C) be contributed to a charitable organization;
(D) be retained by the candidate or candidate committee for use in a future election for a six-year period following the General Election for the same or a different office;
(E) be used to defend legal actions or proceedings arising out of the campaign, election, or the performance of the candidate's official
duties as a state officer; provided that such funds shall not be used to
defend criminal charges;
(F) be used for a community activity;
(G) be used for political activity;
(H) be transferred to the state or local central committee of a political party; or
(I) be distributed using a combination of these options.
* * *
Id., (3) [emphasis added]
The Rules thus permit a candidate’s surplus campaign funds to be transferred to the state or local central committee of a political party.
REPUBLICAN HOUSE MEMBERS TRANSFER SURPLUS CAMPAIGN FUNDSTO THE STATE PARTY “VICTORY FUND”
During the months of September and October in the 2004 election cycle, then-Minority Leader Todd Hiett [Hiett”] solicited campaign funds from sitting members of the Republican Caucus of the Oklahoma House of Representatives [“Republican House members”]. He asked that contributions of surplus campaign funds be made to the State Party’s “Victory Fund.”
The latter was a designated portion of ORP’s state bank account. It was used for “get-out-the vote” efforts, voter registration drives, party advertising and to help elect Republicans to state and federal office. The fund was held and operated exclusively by the Oklahoma Republican Party [“ORP” or “Republican State Party” or “State Party”]. Hiett’s solicitation was thus in accordance with Rules’ Section 257:10-1-20(a)(3)(H).
Those solicited understood that their Victory Fund contributions would be spent according to decisions made by appropriate committees and officers of the Republican State Party. The Chairman of the latter was, and is, Gary Jones [“Jones”]. Jones explained that, according to internal rules, State Party support is never the decision of a handful of people, but of many, drawn from various levels of the party. Jones said the goal is to have broad representation on the committee which decides.
THE STATE REPUBLICAN PARTY PURSUES
A BROAD-BASED AGENDA
The Victory Fund was to promote a statewide Republican effort in the 2004 elections. As noted, it encompassed a statewide voter registration drive and “get-out-the-vote” campaign. It included party advertising.
RSHC members were told that a “rising tide lifts all boats.” In other words, these measures would benefit every Republican on the ballot.
The State Party also supported certain ORP-selected state and federal candidates. Its roster included those seeking statewide office, as well as federal candidates. For instance, former- Congressman Tom Coburn received State Party support in his bid for a United States Senate seat.
COUNTY PARTIES ADVANCE
A MORE MODEST AGENDA
County parties direct their efforts in different ways. Their means are more modest, as are their goals. Even the larger ones – like those in Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties – raise far less money than does the State counterpart. County Party committees support fewer candidates.
Historically, they focus on local races. While not confined to such, they often concentrate on county elections or candidates to the State Legislature who represent areas within their borders.
Oklahoma County Republican Committee [“OCRC” or “Oklahoma County Party” or “County Party”] is a large County Party. It is an active one. Nonetheless, that entity did not fund statewide “get-out-the-vote” campaigns. It did not support candidates for federal office.
Its agenda did not mirror that of the State Republican Party. Its interests were narrower. Until 2004, OCRC may have occasionally contributed outside of Oklahoma County, but its focus was upon candidates representing districts within its boundaries.
The State and County Republican Parties therefore did not share agendas. Given what later transpired, their interests in 2004 were actually adverse.
CARGILL’S ROLE IN THE 2004 CAMPAIGNS
Representative Lance Cargill [“Cargill”] participated in the 2004 Victory Fund solicitation of Republican House members. He did this in his individual capacity. But, in reality, According to the Rules, Cargill could not serve as the official chairman of RSHC1 without committee contributions counting against his personal campaign limits. It was thus necessary for another to serve as titular committee chairman.
The total amount of Republican House member surplus fund-contributions to the Victory2 Funds was $44,000.
Several Republican House members later issued a joint statement that they did not mind3 that their donations were re-directed to the County – as opposed to the State – Republican Party Committee. The Commission notes that, when tendering a campaign contribution, present donative intent controls. A subsequent declaration does not change the payee. he acted as the “de facto” Chairman of the Republican State House Committee [“RSHC” or “House PAC”]. Several of those solicited thought he, in fact, headed RSHC.1
The operation was successful. Pursuant to the Victory Fund solicitation, the following House members wrote checks from their surplus funds to the State Party. Checks were written on the cited dates and in these amounts:
Cargill for the House Committee (9/14/04), $1,500; Friends of Don Armes
Committee (9/04/04), $1,000 and (10/06/04), $3,000; Friends of Chris Benge Committee (9/13/04), $3,500; Mark Liotta for State Rep. Committee (9/14/04), $5,000; Todd Hiett for State Rep. Committee (10/15/04), $5,000; Newport State Rep. Committee (10/18/04), $1,000; Friends of John Smaligo Committee (10/15/04), $3,000; Friends of John Smaligo Committee (10/22/04), $2,000; Friends of Raymond Vaughn Committee, $5,000; Friends of Susan Winchester Committee, $3,000; John Trebilcock for State House Committee (10/11/04), $3,500; Friends of Ron Peters Committee (10/11/04), $4,000; Committee to Re-Elect Fred Perry (10/6/04), $1,000; Friends for Dale Dewitt 2004 Committee (10/8/04), $2,500. 2
At the point of tendering these instruments, House members intended them for the State Party, since it alone had the “Victory Fund.” 3 But, the checks were diverted. Instead of the State Party – as was intended by the donors – they ended up in the coffers of the OCRC.
The reason was clear. Cargill told members that 2004 was the year the Republicans could win a majority of seats in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. Like all elections, success requires money. Cargill felt that Victory Fund money raised from House members should be spent on House races. Operatives appeared at State Party headquarters with some House members’
All checks were made payable to the “Oklahoma Republican Party,” except the4 following: Two checks from Smaligo were designated: “Republican Party.” Representative Fred Perry left blank the name of the payee. Representative Jim Newport was asked for a second check to replace the first. The latter – and it alone – was made out to “Oklahoma County Republican Party.” Representative Mark Liotta’s check bore a memo which stated: “Victory Fund Campaign Contribution” – consistent with his making the check to the “Oklahoma State Republican Party.”
After-the-fact, the word “State” was crossed out and “County” was written in, instead. campaign checks, together with a list of where those funds should be spent. Jones reluctantly permitted it on an emergency basis, but then stopped the practice. His position was that Victory Fund money was to be spent on Victory Fund – meaning statewide – efforts, and not confined to carefully selected House races.
This posed a problem. As noted, the Rules permit transferring surplus campaign funds to a State or Central Committee of a political party – not a PAC, like RSHC. Since the ORP had declined to earmark House-raised funds for expenditures in certain House races, another party committee was needed. Al Mertens, then serving as OCRC Chairman, agreed to accommodate the Cargill/RSHC plan. The OCRC board later acquiesced.
ORP VICTORY FUND CHECKS
ARE ROUTED TO THE COUNTY PARTY
The County Party received the above- listed donations intended for the ORP Victory Fund.
It began paying for polling, compensation of campaign workers called “Field Reps,” and other expenses associated with select House races.
While the record supports a broader finding, the Commission has chosen to base its case upon the testimony of four Republican House members who have maintained throughout they never intended donations of their surplus campaign funds to go anywhere but the State Republican Party.
Those four are: Hiett, Representative Susan Winchester [“Winchester”], former Representative Ray Vaughn [“Vaughn”] and Representative John Trebilcock [“Trebilcock”].
The surplus campaign checks – including the checks of these four – were either collected from Republican House members by Cargill and/or his designees, agents or employees. Or, they were mailed to the State Party, but somehow ended up with titular Chairman of RSHC, Aaron Curry [“Curry”]. These surplus campaign checks were made payable to “ORP, the “Oklahoma Republican Party” or a variation of that name – with the intent that the funds go to the State Party.4 A number of Rule violations ensued.
RULE VIOLATIONS
COUNT ONE
The Rules require those gathering or receiving contributions to provide them to the payee’s treasurer within five (5) days of receipt. The State Republican Party Treasurer never received them.
In gathering Republican House members’ checks to the Victory Fund, Cargill and RSHC were jointly and severally charged with providing these instruments to the State Party treasurer within five days. This was never done, in violation of Rules’ Section 257:10-1-10(d), which provides:
Campaign depositories and campaign accounts
* * *
(d) All contributions, other than in-kind contributions, accepted by the committee,
directly or indirectly, shall be deposited in a campaign account within ten (10) days after
acceptance. All contributions received by a deputy treasurer or agent of the committee,
including the candidate, on behalf of a committee shall be provided to the treasurer or,
in the treasurer's absence, the deputy treasurer not later than five (5) days after receipt.
* * *
Section 257:10-1-10
COUNT TWO
Certain of these House member checks were tendered without a Contributor Statement.
Contributions of John Trebilcock and Ray Vaughn were not accompanied by the Statement. Nor has any been provided to date, because neither ever filled out nor signed the form.
Both checks were cashed in the absence of a Contributor Statement. Their contributions were therefore accepted, and deposited, in violation of Rules’ Section 257:10-1-2(c). Contributions
* * *
(c) Contributor statement. Within ten (10) business days of accepting a single
contribution exceeding fifty dollars ($50.00), or before accepting multiple contributions from a single source which exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) in the aggregate, persons accepting contributions must obtain from each contributor a statement which shall include:
(1) the date the contribution was given;
(2) the name and address, occupation [e.g."retail sales clerk"] and
employer [e.g. "Dillard"], or principal business activity of the contributor; a contribution from a person other than an individual or a committee shall be reported by the name of the person or committee and not the individual who signed the check;
(3) the amount; if in-kind, a description of the contribution and a good faith estimate of its fair market value;
(4) a declaration that the contribution is for a campaign in the State of Oklahoma, and the contribution is freely and voluntarily given from the contributor's personal property, if an individual, or the person or committee's property, if other than an individual;
(5) a declaration that the contributor has not been directly or indirectly compensated or reimbursed for the contribution, if an individual, and, if a person other than an individual or a committee, that the person or committee has not been compensated or reimbursed for the contribution by persons:
(A) other than those from whom contributor statements have been received and of whom disclosure has or will be made; or
(B) if from persons exempted from the definition of political action committee, by other persons; and
(6) the signature of the contributor, or in the case of a committee, the treasurer or, in the treasurer's absence, the deputy treasurer of the committee.
Persons accepting contributions from contributors who contribute by payroll deduction, dues check-off, or similar process shall be required to obtain only one contributor statement annually or at such other times as a change is made in the deduction, check- off, or similar process.
Section 257:10-1-2(c)
COUNT THREE
Curry offered OCRC the campaign checks with the stipulation that the funds be used to pay specified expenses incurred by RSHC. Expenses included background research into opposing candidates by the law firm of Hartzog, Conger et al., polling by Cole Hargrave Snodgrass & Associates for a 300-sample survey, "brushfire polls" conducted by Lowther & Shapard in certain races, and various salaries or fees of Field Reps or consultants. Earmarking contributions to pay expenditures for the benefit of certain candidates violated the provisions of Rules’ Section 257:10-1-
2(j)(2) as follows:
Contributions
(j) Anonymous and earmarked contributions.
* * *
(2) For purposes of the contribution limitations imposed by this section, all contributions made by a person, either directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of a particular candidate committee, including contributions which are in any way earmarked or otherwise directed through an intermediary or conduit to such candidate committee, shall be treated as contributions from such person to such candidate committee. It shall be prohibited for an intermediary or a conduit to make a contribution to a committee in his or her own name rather than the name of the original source of such contribution. For purposes of this paragraph, an intermediary or conduit means a person, who is not the treasurer, deputy treasurer or agent of a committee, but who is given a contribution by another with the understanding that it will be contributed to that committee. The reports shall show the correct name of the person actually
making the contribution.
* * *
Section 257:10-1-2(j)(2)
As noted, after accommodating no more than two requests on an emergency basis, Jones declined to permit RSHC to earmark Victory Funds for specific races. It was this decision that caused the House PAC to turn to OCRC to do its bidding.
COUNT FOUR
Cargill, RSHC and OCRC then devised a scheme whereby RSHC would circumvent the State Party and direct how the surplus funds were spent. They were aware that surplus candidate campaign funds may not be used as contributions to political action committees [“PACs”]. That precluded depositing the funds in RSHC. They were also aware that, under Section 257:10-1- 20(3)(H), the Rules permit surplus campaign funds to be transferred to the state or local central committee of a political party.
Use of campaign contributions and use of surplus funds
(a) Candidate committees.
* * *
(3) Use of surplus funds. The surplus funds may:
* * *
(H) be transferred to the state or local central committee of a political
party; or
* * *
Section 257:10-1-20(a)(3)(H)
In violation of this rule, Respondents planned to deposit these checks into a county party and have it pay expenses they or RSHC incurred to support their hand-picked candidate campaigns. The plan included earmarking contributions by limiting how the funds might be spent. The County Party was to function as an intermediary or conduit.
Cargill at first considered the Creek County Republican Party as the intermediary/conduit. OCRC was chosen, instead. The matter was discussed with OCRC then-Chairman Al Mertens [“Mertens”] who agreed. Curry – or his agent, employee or designee – delivered all or part of the above listed checks to OCRC, along with the specific bills and invoices the County Party was to pay.
Rules’ Section 257:10-1-10(d) requires that contributions accepted by an agent of a committee be turned over to the treasurer, or deputy treasurer, within five days of receipt. If directly or indirectly accepted by a committee, the rule then requires the money be deposited in the committee’s campaign account within ten (10) days after such acceptance. As noted, Curry, who accepted the checks from Cargill, failed to timely deliver the checks to the State Party’s treasurer – or deputy treasurer – within five days of receipt in violation of Section 257:10-1-10(d). Instead, he presented them to Mertens, who caused them to be deposited, illegally, in OCRC’s account.
OCRC thus violated this provision.
Outside the lawful time line for acceptance, the County Party not only deposited these checks, it began paying for political consultants, polls and Field Rep’s – expenses incurred by Cargill/RSHC in furtherance of their plan to use State Party money, not for the ORP roster, but earmarking the funds to help elect their personal choice of candidates.
A key part of the scheme was that OCRC was to act as the conduit for RSHC. As noted, the County Party was to accept money from Victory Fund contributors and pay bills to support designated candidates.
Under Section 257:10-1-2(j), contributions which are in any way directed through an intermediary, or conduit, to a candidate committee in its name – rather than the name of the original source – are treated as contributions from the true donor. This means that RSHC checks given to candidates – together with its expenses incurred to assist these candidates (paid for by OCRC) – counted against RSHC’s contribution limits.
COUNT FIVE
Curry served both as RSHC Chair and Treasurer from January 5, 2003 to January 28, 2005.
Jenny Parton [“Parton”] then took over both positions. Parton continued in her dual role until October 17, 2006, when she was replaced by Carolyn Pickthorn [“Pickthorn”], who likewise served as Chair and Treasurer. According to Ethics Commission records, Pickthorn continues in these capacities to date. All have certified the RSHC Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Reports [“Form C-1R”]. These C-1Rs are inaccurate, in that they fail to include the funds involved in the conduit scheme. All are thus in violation of Rules’ Section 257:10-1-14(a)(3) and (20) which
provide.
Report contents
(a) Basic reporting form. The campaign contributions and expenditures report shall include:
* * *
(3) the following information about monetary contributions, including
loans accepted from a person other than a committee:
(A) the total sum of all contributions accepted during
the current reporting period . . .
(B) the total of contributions accepted for the
campaign-to-date or calendar year-to-date . . .
* * *
(20) the signature, or typed signature on electronically filed forms of the treasurer or, in the treasurer's absence, the deputy treasurer, who shall certify that prior to accepting any contribution requiring a contributor statement during this campaign-to-date for candidate committees or calendar year-to-date for other committees, the treasurer, or deputy treasurer in the treasurer’s absence, received a contributor statement therefor and who shall each attest to the report's accuracy and veracity. Within five (5) business days of the treasurer or deputy treasurer of a candidate committee filing a required report, the candidate, or the treasurer of a candidate committee for a candidate seeking judicial office, shall confirm in writing that the report filed was true and correct. The signature shall be verified. Section 257:10-1-14(a)(3) and (20)
In agreeing to this plan, Mertens and other OCRC officers joined Cargill/RSHC in contravening Rules’ Sections 257:10-1-10(d) and 10-1-2(j)(2). All checks, exceeding fifty dollars ($50.00), were accepted unlawfully by the treasurer of a different committee and in the absence of a Contributor Statement. As such, these checks were illegally accepted, deposited and spent by the County Party and were used to pay expenses incurred by RSHC.
From January 28, 2002 to July 6, 2006, Elizabeth A, Rolen [“Rolen”] served as OCRC Treasurer. In such capacity, she prepared and filed a series of C-1Rs on behalf of OCRC. She dated the form and, as treasurer of OCRC, signed her name to the following:
To the best of my knowledge and belief, the above is a true and correct compilation.
Prior to accepting a contribution requiring a contributor statement during this campaign or calendar year-to-date, the treasurer or deputy treasurer received a contributor statement therefor. . . FORM C-1R, Certification, at line 26 [emphasis added] OCRC violated Rules’ Section 257:10-1-14(a)(20) by filing a report in the absence of Contributor Statements. Each instance forms a separate count. OCRC also violated that provision when Rolen, as its treasurer, certified as correct totals – and campaign-to-date totals – which illegally included contributions that OCRC was not authorized to accept and did so without the mandatory Contributor Statements. Each instance of filing such a report also forms a separate count of a Rule 10-1-14(a)(20) violation.
Robert L. Bowman [“Bowman”] took over from Rolen on July 6, 2006. Ethics Commission records show he served as OCRC Treasurer from that time to October 1, 2007. As treasurer, he also prepared and filed C1-R reports which violated these same provisions. OCRC likewise violated Rules’ Section 257:10-1-14(a)(20) by certifying as correct totals, and campaign-to-date totals, which illegally included contributions without the Contributor Statement. Each instance of filing such a report constitutes a separate count of a Rule 10-1-14(a)(20) violation.
A C-1R report filed January 25, 2007 by Representative Mike Duane Jackson [“Jackson”], the Republican nominee in House District #40, listed an expenditure of $3,500 marked as contribution for voter recount. But, on May 17, 2007, Jackson filed an amended C1-R. It showed that a monetary transfer of $3,500 had been made on November 9, 2006 to OCRC. Jackson then deleted the expenditure of the same date for the voter recount. In this matter, Cargill/RSHC again utilized OCRC as a conduit/intermediary. The one solicited surplus funds for the other, so that the County Party might contribute the exact amount for use in the voter recount. In so doing, they again violated Rules’ Sections 257:10-1-2(a)(2) and 10-1-20(a)(H).
In addition, OCRC used House members’ surplus campaign funds to pay the following expenses: Cole Snodgrass Hargrave & Associates — House District [“HD”]13, Stuart Ericson, $2,700; HD45, Thad Balkman, $2,450; HD23, Sue Tibbs, $2,450; HD09, Tad Jones, $2,200; HD26, Kris Steele, $2,800; HD61, Gus Blackwell, $2,450 — less $5,000 "paid by PAC;" Party check #2,500 paid $10,550 toward these expenses. A facsimile transmittal from Veda Shapard, Lowther & Shapard, advised that Aaron Curry had instructed the forwarding of invoices ($500 each) to the Oklahoma County Republican Committee for payment of the following: brushfire polls for the races of HD 61 (Gus Blackwell), HD 13 (Stuart Ericson), HD 8 (Bill Kendrick), HD 12 (Mark Wofford), HD 22 (Preston Edgar), and HD 26 (Kris Steele). Bills from several consultants were also paid by the Oklahoma County Republican Party for candidates races well outside Oklahoma County.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE
The Commission has carried out the investigation of this information pursuant to its constitutional mandate to “investigate and, when it deems appropriate, prosecute” violations of its rules governing ethical conduct of state officers, employees and state campaigns. OKLA. CONST. Art.29, §4(A); §3(A) and (B) The instant proceeding has been conducted in accordance with Rules’ Chapter 30.
SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION
The Commission has conducted a thorough investigation into this matter. It has interviewed witnesses, collected documents and searched records. It fully reviewed multiple aspects of this matter. The material facts are not in dispute.
The breadth of these facts, coupled with the complexity of the investigation, has caused the Commission to pursue the RSHC and OCRC committees, rather than their officers. Individuals’ names are required for purposes of the fact record.
JURISDICTION/VENUE
The Commission has and retains both in personam and subject matter jurisdiction over Respondents and all aspects of the conduct in question. The acts charged against Respondents occurred in Oklahoma County, State of Oklahoma, where venue lies.
REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL
The Commission notes each Respondent was been apprised of the right to be represented by counsel. Each has been represented by counsel of his/their own choosing. Attorneys of record have been afforded the opportunity to reply to all allegations. All did, in fact, reply. Their responses were carefully reviewed and considered by the Commissioners.
REPRIMAND
This letter constitutes the Commission’s Public Reprimand of the Respondents for the cited rule violations. It does not speak to state statutes or provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution but, instead, is confined to the Rules which the Commission enforces.
The Commissioners are charged with enforcing ethical conduct of state officers, employees and campaigns in Oklahoma. This reprimand is the act of the full Commission and not of its staff.
It was authorized in open meeting by a unanimous vote of all four Commissioners. In accordance with agency policy, the final draft of this document was approved by the undersigned, in his capacity as Ethics Commission Chairman. A copy will be immediately provided to the Capitol Media Corps for public dissemination.
This concludes the matter.
Oklahoma NEED a Sarah Palin for Governor in 2010 !
Hat Tip to Champion News Network
Maybe it's the frontier heritage or maybe it's the state's rugged landscape, but whatever the reason, Alaskan women seem to have more cajones than most of the men in Illinois politics.
Republican Sarah Palin was elected Alaska's first woman Governor in 2006. Now 43, she's also the youngest in state history.
Palin is something of a Renaissance Woman. She once competed in the Miss Alaska contest and she played on her high school's state championship girls basketball team. She's been a television sports reporter, a city council member and mayor. She's helped run the family's commercial fishing business and she remains married to her high school sweetheart. Earlier this month she announced she was seven months pregnant with the couple's fifth child.
Palin has one of the highest approval ratings of any Governor in America and she continues to build a reputation as one of the greatest crusaders for ethical government anywhere. She also believes in reducing the size of government. Last year she introduced a budget that cut state spending by $124 million.
While once favored by the old guard of Alaska's GOP, Palin split with the good old boys over corruption issues. Palin was elected Governor in 2006 as a maverick reformer, without the help of the entrenched party players.
Two weeks ago the Alaska Republican Party held their State Convention in Juneau and Palin rose to the occasion yet again. Under Palin's leadership, their convention was all about reforming and cleaning-up the State GOP.
Around 400 delegates registered for the 3-day event, reportedly a record. (By comparison, that's about the same size crowd that attended the Illinois GOP's State Convention in 2004, and Alaska's population is barely 5% of ours, 670 thousand vs. 12.8 million.)
Alaska is a very Red State with vastly fewer people, but on some other levels there are startling similarities to Illinois. For one thing, there seem to be a lot of ongoing federal investigations involving bigwig politicos. And just like the Illinois GOP, the Alaska GOP has been devastated by corruption.
The state's Republican National Committeeman has been under an ethical cloud, just like ours. Alaska's is Ben Stevens, the son of the longest serving Republican in the U.S. Senate, Ted Stevens.
While Ben has not been charged with any crime, it's been reported that he's under federal scrutiny. Two former executives (now convicted) of the oilfield service firm VECO Corp. have already testified they made certain payments to Stevens and others.
Last fall Palin called on Ben Stevens to resign as Republican National Committeeman. Stevens ignored those calls for early resignation, but a new National Committeeman was just selected at their State Convention. Stevens reportedly hadn't been to an RNC meeting since 2005, and he didn't show up to the State Convention.
Ben's father Ted (the GOP U.S. Senator) is also the subject of a federal probe, and in July of 2007 federal agents raided his home. Palin has called on the Senator to explain why to Alaskans. He's refused.
Then there is Republican Don Young who has been Alaska's lone U.S. Representative for 35 years. Young is probably best known outside of Alaska for securing $223 million in federal earmarks for the "Bridge to Nowhere" - a bridge nearly as long as the Golden Gate which connects Gravina Island (population less than 50) with Ketchikan (population 8,000). Last year Young's campaign spent nearly $850,000 on legal fees, but he also won't explain why.
At the start of the Convention, Palin's Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell stunned delegates by announcing he would be making an August GOP Primary challenge against Young for the Congressional seat. Parnell, with Governor Palin at his side, then left the Convention floor to file the official paperwork. That move was reportedly very well received by the delegation.
But the Alaska State Convention probably saw the most excitement when Palin and her allies fought to remove State Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich (like our Chairman Andy McKenna, Ruedrich's regular term isn't up until 2010).
Palin parted ways with Ruedrich back in 2003 when both served on the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Palin exposed Ruedrich for ethical violations and he ended up paying a $12,000 penalty, the state's largest civil fine for an ethics case.
From media coverage it's clear Alaska's GOP Convention provided a lot of positive energy and exciting political theatre. It's also clear Alaska has some real leaders who get it.
Here are just some of the great quotes from the convention podium and floor:
"I think we need to call on all of you assembled delegates to rise and literally even stand with me if you desire change in our party's leadership. If you believe in that change please be bold." --Governor Sarah Palin.
"We're doing this so we can tell the public look we're behind the public and its motivation to clean up government. That's what this is all about, and to make sure the public understands that the Republican Party is a party of ethics and not corruption." -- Joe Miller, Regional Chairman from Fairbanks who supported the effort to oust State Chair Ruedrich.
"If you find something that's rotten in your fridge that you should have thrown out last week, you don't say, 'Well, we'll just leave it there for a few more weeks.' You throw it out now. And I think...that's what's happening today. People are just... this is the opportunity to do it." -- Caroline McMullin, Delegate from Meadow Lakes.
"It's not divisive and you're not starting trouble when you're doing something right. That's all that's happening here. Let's get the right thing done, get the right leadership." -- Nick Stepovich, Delegate from Fairbanks.
"We can't kid ourselves, there has not yet been restoration of the public's confidence in the Republican Party and we have got to do better." - Governor Sarah Palin.
"We're supposed to be the party of values, people are going to jail . . . and in some cases they are already in jail. I am here because we have problems. By ‘we' I mean the Republican Party. By ‘problems' I mean that our party has strayed from our core principles of fiscal conservatism, smaller government and personal responsibility." - Gabrielle LeDoux, GOP Congressional candidate.
Right before the Convention's adjournment, the delegates voted 167 to 133 to table the resolution calling for State Chairman Ruedrich's early resignation. Ruedrich told the assembled just prior to that vote that he would ignore such a resolution anyway (that also sounds familiar).
Still, the Alaska GOP had a very successful convention. They had real leaders standing-up for positive change. They elected a new and better National Committeeman. And they found out their popular Lieutenant Governor would be challenging their stayed-to-long King of Pork, GOP Congressman Don Young.
Reform minded Republicans maybe didn't get everything they wanted, but they seriously advanced the ball. The Alaska GOP is truly rebuilding. Our State GOP can't say that yet.
The only question left is why in a state with nearly 20 times the population of Alaska can't we seem to find a Republican for statewide office like Sarah Palin?
Doug Ibendahl is a Chicago Attorney and a former General Counsel of the Illinois Republican Party. He is Co-Founder of Republican Young Professionals (RYP).
Alaskan reformers refused
to rollover at their
State GOP Convention
to rollover at their
State GOP Convention
By Doug Ibendahl
Maybe it's the frontier heritage or maybe it's the state's rugged landscape, but whatever the reason, Alaskan women seem to have more cajones than most of the men in Illinois politics.
Republican Sarah Palin was elected Alaska's first woman Governor in 2006. Now 43, she's also the youngest in state history.
Palin is something of a Renaissance Woman. She once competed in the Miss Alaska contest and she played on her high school's state championship girls basketball team. She's been a television sports reporter, a city council member and mayor. She's helped run the family's commercial fishing business and she remains married to her high school sweetheart. Earlier this month she announced she was seven months pregnant with the couple's fifth child.
Palin has one of the highest approval ratings of any Governor in America and she continues to build a reputation as one of the greatest crusaders for ethical government anywhere. She also believes in reducing the size of government. Last year she introduced a budget that cut state spending by $124 million.
While once favored by the old guard of Alaska's GOP, Palin split with the good old boys over corruption issues. Palin was elected Governor in 2006 as a maverick reformer, without the help of the entrenched party players.
Two weeks ago the Alaska Republican Party held their State Convention in Juneau and Palin rose to the occasion yet again. Under Palin's leadership, their convention was all about reforming and cleaning-up the State GOP.
Around 400 delegates registered for the 3-day event, reportedly a record. (By comparison, that's about the same size crowd that attended the Illinois GOP's State Convention in 2004, and Alaska's population is barely 5% of ours, 670 thousand vs. 12.8 million.)
Alaska is a very Red State with vastly fewer people, but on some other levels there are startling similarities to Illinois. For one thing, there seem to be a lot of ongoing federal investigations involving bigwig politicos. And just like the Illinois GOP, the Alaska GOP has been devastated by corruption.
The state's Republican National Committeeman has been under an ethical cloud, just like ours. Alaska's is Ben Stevens, the son of the longest serving Republican in the U.S. Senate, Ted Stevens.
While Ben has not been charged with any crime, it's been reported that he's under federal scrutiny. Two former executives (now convicted) of the oilfield service firm VECO Corp. have already testified they made certain payments to Stevens and others.
Last fall Palin called on Ben Stevens to resign as Republican National Committeeman. Stevens ignored those calls for early resignation, but a new National Committeeman was just selected at their State Convention. Stevens reportedly hadn't been to an RNC meeting since 2005, and he didn't show up to the State Convention.
Ben's father Ted (the GOP U.S. Senator) is also the subject of a federal probe, and in July of 2007 federal agents raided his home. Palin has called on the Senator to explain why to Alaskans. He's refused.
Then there is Republican Don Young who has been Alaska's lone U.S. Representative for 35 years. Young is probably best known outside of Alaska for securing $223 million in federal earmarks for the "Bridge to Nowhere" - a bridge nearly as long as the Golden Gate which connects Gravina Island (population less than 50) with Ketchikan (population 8,000). Last year Young's campaign spent nearly $850,000 on legal fees, but he also won't explain why.
At the start of the Convention, Palin's Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell stunned delegates by announcing he would be making an August GOP Primary challenge against Young for the Congressional seat. Parnell, with Governor Palin at his side, then left the Convention floor to file the official paperwork. That move was reportedly very well received by the delegation.
But the Alaska State Convention probably saw the most excitement when Palin and her allies fought to remove State Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich (like our Chairman Andy McKenna, Ruedrich's regular term isn't up until 2010).
Palin parted ways with Ruedrich back in 2003 when both served on the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. Palin exposed Ruedrich for ethical violations and he ended up paying a $12,000 penalty, the state's largest civil fine for an ethics case.
From media coverage it's clear Alaska's GOP Convention provided a lot of positive energy and exciting political theatre. It's also clear Alaska has some real leaders who get it.
Here are just some of the great quotes from the convention podium and floor:
"I think we need to call on all of you assembled delegates to rise and literally even stand with me if you desire change in our party's leadership. If you believe in that change please be bold." --Governor Sarah Palin.
"We're doing this so we can tell the public look we're behind the public and its motivation to clean up government. That's what this is all about, and to make sure the public understands that the Republican Party is a party of ethics and not corruption." -- Joe Miller, Regional Chairman from Fairbanks who supported the effort to oust State Chair Ruedrich.
"If you find something that's rotten in your fridge that you should have thrown out last week, you don't say, 'Well, we'll just leave it there for a few more weeks.' You throw it out now. And I think...that's what's happening today. People are just... this is the opportunity to do it." -- Caroline McMullin, Delegate from Meadow Lakes.
"It's not divisive and you're not starting trouble when you're doing something right. That's all that's happening here. Let's get the right thing done, get the right leadership." -- Nick Stepovich, Delegate from Fairbanks.
"We can't kid ourselves, there has not yet been restoration of the public's confidence in the Republican Party and we have got to do better." - Governor Sarah Palin.
"We're supposed to be the party of values, people are going to jail . . . and in some cases they are already in jail. I am here because we have problems. By ‘we' I mean the Republican Party. By ‘problems' I mean that our party has strayed from our core principles of fiscal conservatism, smaller government and personal responsibility." - Gabrielle LeDoux, GOP Congressional candidate.
Right before the Convention's adjournment, the delegates voted 167 to 133 to table the resolution calling for State Chairman Ruedrich's early resignation. Ruedrich told the assembled just prior to that vote that he would ignore such a resolution anyway (that also sounds familiar).
Still, the Alaska GOP had a very successful convention. They had real leaders standing-up for positive change. They elected a new and better National Committeeman. And they found out their popular Lieutenant Governor would be challenging their stayed-to-long King of Pork, GOP Congressman Don Young.
Reform minded Republicans maybe didn't get everything they wanted, but they seriously advanced the ball. The Alaska GOP is truly rebuilding. Our State GOP can't say that yet.
The only question left is why in a state with nearly 20 times the population of Alaska can't we seem to find a Republican for statewide office like Sarah Palin?
Doug Ibendahl is a Chicago Attorney and a former General Counsel of the Illinois Republican Party. He is Co-Founder of Republican Young Professionals (RYP).
ALASKA GOV. PALIN IS McCAIN VEEP PICK
Who is Sarah Palin
Gov. Palin is considered a rising star in the Republican Party. She is the state’s first female governor, the mother of five — and at 44 is its youngest chief executive.
Born in Idaho, Palin moved to Alaska with her parents, to Charles and Sally Heath, when she was 3 months old.
She grew up in Wasilla, just outside of Anchorage, and played on the Wasilla state championship girls’ basketball team. She was crowned Miss Wasilla in 1984 and was a runner-up in the Miss Alaska pageant.
Palin studied journalism and political science at the University of Idaho and graduated in 1987. She eloped with her high school boyfriend, Todd Palin, in 1988 to save money on an expensive wedding. She helped out in her husband’s family commercial fishing business and appeared occasionally as a television sportscaster.
Palin won a seat on the Wasilla City Council in 1992 as a new face and a new voice, and by opposing tax increases. Four years later she was elected mayor at 32 by knocking off a three-term incumbent. At the end of her second term, party leaders encouraged her to enter the 2002 race for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor. Against veteran legislators with far more experience, Palin finished second by fewer than 2,000 votes, making a name for herself in statewide politics. She was elected Alaska’s youngest and first woman governor in 2006.
Sarah and Todd Palin have five children: boys Track, 19, and Trig, 4 months, and daughters Bristol, 17, Willow, 13, and Piper, 7.
Track Palin joined the Army last September and will deploy to Iraq on Sept. 11. Palin gave birth to Trig, who has Down syndrome, in April and returned to work three days later.
Pawlenty on GOP veep spot: 'It was an honor to be considered'
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty says he won't be joining Sen. John McCain at a campaign event where the presumptive GOP nominee is expected to introduce his running mate to supporters this morning in Ohio.
"All I can say is that I’m not going to be there. I plan to be at the state fair. You can draw your conclusion from that," Pawlenty tells WCCO-AM, according to the Star Tribune.
Here's more from WCCO-TV:
The governor told WCCO Radio's Eric Eskola that he will be at the Minnesota State Fair Friday, doing his radio show.
"You're not going to be there so we can just say point-blank, you're not the nominee?" Eskola asked Pawlenty.
"All I can say is that I'm not going to be there and I plan on being at the State Fair and so you can draw your conclusions from that," Pawlenty said. "I just can't comment further at this time."
"All I can say is that I’m not going to be there. I plan to be at the state fair. You can draw your conclusion from that," Pawlenty tells WCCO-AM, according to the Star Tribune.
Here's more from WCCO-TV:
The governor told WCCO Radio's Eric Eskola that he will be at the Minnesota State Fair Friday, doing his radio show.
"You're not going to be there so we can just say point-blank, you're not the nominee?" Eskola asked Pawlenty.
"All I can say is that I'm not going to be there and I plan on being at the State Fair and so you can draw your conclusions from that," Pawlenty said. "I just can't comment further at this time."
Could it be...
This just in...
Plane just landed at Hook Field outside Dayton
August 29, 2008 6:29:52 AM GMT+00:00 - A Gulfstream G4 supposedly carrying Gov. Sarah Palin from Alaska, N222GY, Origin Anchorage Intl (PANC) Destination Hook Field Muni (KMWO).
Governor Palin is:
Young and energetic
Conservative
Pro-Life Woman with a family
Experienced in Executive Government
Plane just landed at Hook Field outside Dayton
August 29, 2008 6:29:52 AM GMT+00:00 - A Gulfstream G4 supposedly carrying Gov. Sarah Palin from Alaska, N222GY, Origin Anchorage Intl (PANC) Destination Hook Field Muni (KMWO).
Governor Palin is:Young and energetic
Conservative
Pro-Life Woman with a family
Experienced in Executive Government
The Beauty of Sarah Palin
by Josh Painter
by Josh Painter
I'm not talking about the mere physical attractiveness of Alaska's governor, though she has been blessed with an abundance of that gift. Palin was a competitor in the 1984 Miss Alaska beauty pageant after being named Miss Wasilla earlier that year, where she also won Miss Congeniality honors.
No, what I'm dicussing here is beauty in the political sense - as in the beauty of what John McCain, if he's smart and willing to make a really bold move, could accomplish by naming Governor Palin as his running mate for the presidential election.
Those making the case for Palin as GOP VP nominee include Jack Kelly on Real Clear Politics, American Spectator's Thomas Cheplick, Bill Krtistol and Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard and Anchorage Daily News columnist William Ruger.
A number of bloggers have added their voices to the chorus in praise of Alaska's governor. Just a few examples can be found here, here and here.
There are websites devoted to promoting Palin for the Republican vice presidential nomination - Sarah Palin for America, Palin For VP, and Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President. There are even web ads made independently on her behalf. You can view them...
There no need for me to echo all of the arguments made by those cited here for Sarah Palin. But I would like to add some perspective.
With energy and oil prices at the top of the nation's current domestic concerns, and with energy independence tied closely to national security at a time when Russia, America's old nemisis, is again on the rise, it is critical for McCain to have someone on his ticket who can speak with authority about energy. Palin demonstrates her command of the subject in this video clip from Glenn Beck's TV show.
Also, in one of the most under-reported news stories in recent weeks, Gov. Palin has accomplished a feat which has eluded the U.S. Congress for many years. She has pushed through the Alaska legislature a natural gas pipeline project which will bring new supply and price relief to the lower 48:
On Aug. 1, the same day the call for a vote on drilling began on the House floor, the Alaska state Senate approved a package of measures to license a new natural gas pipeline. House Bill 3001 lets Palin award the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act license to TransCanada Alaska, a pipeline builder that cast a winning bid of five.
The legislature had been trying for 30 years to authorize something like this and, up until now, had blown it. Palin got it through. Getting it off the ground, the state says, will be the biggest construction project in U.S. history.
Palin considers the $26 billion project her biggest accomplishment as governor. "It was not easy," she told IBD. "Alaska has been hoping and dreaming for a natural gas pipeline for decades. What it took was getting off the dime and creating a competitive market in Alaska."
The 1,715-mile gas line would stretch from Alaska's North Slope to Fairbanks and down to Alberta, Canada. Then it would take existing gas lines to Idaho. In 10 years, Palin says, the lower 48 states would receive 4.5 million cubic feet of natural gas a day. By 2030, according to Energy Department estimates, Alaska's annual natgas production would quintuple to 2 trillion cubic feet.
With the voters seeing nothing being done but congressional bickering on the energy front, Sarah Palin can point to this accomplishment to show that she's a "can do" leader on energy, something no other potential GOP vice presidential nominee can boast of right now. That's what the electorate is looking for, and this would make Palin a valuable asset to McCain's campaign.
But I've saved the best for last. The Democrats can hardly criticize Gov. Palin's resume as being too thin without calling attention to Obama's own limited experience. And that perhaps, is the real beauty of Sarah Palin.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Red State Endorses Cantor! Yes We CANTOR!
Eric Cantor for Vice President
We need him. He fights.
Posted by: The Directors
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 12:21PM
In 1862, when some of Abraham Lincoln's political allies, furious over the losses at Shiloh, demanded the removal of Ulysses S. Grant from the leadership of the Army of the Tennessee, the first Republican President responded with unequivocal fervor.We need him. He fights.
Posted by: The Directors
Wednesday, August 27, 2008 at 12:21PM
"I can't spare this man," Lincoln said. "He fights."
What John McCain requires in a Vice Presidential choice today is an individual who exhibits the best qualities of an intelligent political fighter. He needs a hard worker – a loyal, principled leader – an individual whose reputation is above reproach. And we are convinced that in this case, the right choice is clear.
Pitted in a deadlocked campaign against an eloquent yet inexperienced young evangelist of Hope and Change, McCain requires an individual who with every argument will prove that the Obama-Biden ticket is uninterested in real change or reform. He or she must be equipped to make the case that the ideas they espouse today are the same tried and failed liberal solutions that Biden has supported in his 36 year Senate career – the vestiges of the Great Society made shiny and new for a generation of voters who has no memory of their destructive effects on the nation. He or she must possess a bright policy mind and a telegenic demeanor for explaining these policies in the course of the ongoing debate. And in an election this divisive, McCain's choice must be prepared to fight for new areas of the voting populace, expanding the center-right footprint while simultaneously inspiring the portion of the grassroots base still unenthused with the top of the ticket, and not threaten to break the delicate coalition of the willing who have swallowed their pride to support a former political foe.
One of these tasks alone would not be easy – together, they seem nigh impossible. Yet it is our great fortune today to be blessed with an individual who has all of these qualities and abilities. He is a hard worker, bright, capable and principled. He is a family man, strong in his values, his faith, and his character. And he is truly a man of the right.
He is the Congressman from Virginia, Eric Cantor.
While a young man, Cantor has served in federal office twice as long as Barack Obama - and was a member of leadership when Obama was still in Springfield. In that short time, he has established himself as a dedicated and intelligent member of the House. As the Chief Deputy Whip, he has proved to be an organizer, an innovator, and a natural leader. His knowledge of foreign affairs is above what one would expect from a member of the House, and as a devout Jew, he is one of Israel's greatest allies in Washington and has a wide range of evangelical supporters. He is pro-life without reservation, a strong supporter of gun rights, a fiscal conservative and a loyal advocate for the war on terror. And beyond being a member from a state McCain must carry to win in November, Cantor has proven himself as one of the best fundraisers in the House, with a massive base of support in New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
Above all, though, Cantor is a good man – ethical, motivated and hard working. He is the kind of choice who best represents the face of the conservative movement in the decades to come. We would relish the opportunity to seem him in a debate with Joe Biden, and we have no doubt that he would win.
Cantor's selection would be welcomed by conservatives, applauded by most moderates, and inspire confusion and revealingly insulting attacks from the left.
It would elevate a strong young voice for principled conservative reform to the national stage, not merely for political gain, but because he deserves the platform. And it would cement McCain's election as something that is not just a block against four years of Obama-Biden, but a positive good for the center-right coalition for the future.
John McCain's story is one of determined heroism in the face of torture and fear. It is a story that is profoundly moving. Though few of us at Redstate supported McCain in the primary, all of us view him as a patriot.
John McCain makes people of all political stripes proud to be American. Eric Cantor will make you proud to be a Republican.
We need him. He fights.
'Obama plans to disarm U.S.!'
You can view Obama promises in his own words and full context below:
DES MOINES, Iowa – A video the Barack Obama campaign produced last year to solicit the endorsement of an Iowa-based advocacy group has generated more than 3 million page views on YouTube, fueled by chain e-mails claiming the clip is evidence the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee intends to disarm the U.S..
Florida's St. Petersburg Times received an e-mail that warned of Obama's plan to "unilaterally disarm our nation" and stated, "You do not have to check Snopes to determine if this is true or false. ... Watch and listen to Obama's own words."
WND also received an e-mail suggesting the Democratic National Committee is supposedly pressuring YouTube to remove the video clip before it leaks out to too many viewers and damages Obama's chances of winning the presidency.
The video, however, was originally posted on YouTube by the Obama campaign itself on Oct. 22, 2007, and has been seen – in its various repeat appearances on the site – well over 3 million times.
Does it give evidence of a plan to disarm the U.S.?
In the clip, Obama pledges to "cut tens of billions of dollars" in defense spending, "cut investments" in missile defense systems and "slow our development of future combat systems."
In addition to budget cuts and curtailing weapons research and development, Obama concludes the video by pledging to refrain from developing new nuclear weapons, to negotiate with Russia to take intercontinental missiles "off hair-trigger alert" and to "achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."
Whether such promises constitute an endangering level of disarmament or not is a subject hotly debated on YouTube itself.
One viewer commented, "How will you 'protect the American people' without a powerful defence (sic)? R & D is mandatory to keep ahead of the threats, and develop new and better ways to support and protect our troops when they go in harms (sic) way."
Another viewer agreed with Obama's plan, saying, "Wow. So that's where all my money is going. … Man we are over-kill when it come (sic) to producing a lot of weapons for this country."
Obama originally made the video clip to garner the endorsement of Caucus4Priorities, an Iowa-based group that would likely agree with the latter viewer that advocates shifting federal funds from defense spending to social programs.
The Democratic candidate thanked the group in the video's opening remarks.
The video was made last October as Obama was attempting to win Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus. Obama pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards to win the caucus but lost the Caucus4Priorities endorsement, as the organization backed Edwards instead.
ELECTION 2008
E-mail frenzy:
'Obama plans to disarm U.S.!'
Candidate pledges on YouTube clip
to gut military spending, research
By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
E-mail frenzy:
'Obama plans to disarm U.S.!'
Candidate pledges on YouTube clip
to gut military spending, research
By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily
DES MOINES, Iowa – A video the Barack Obama campaign produced last year to solicit the endorsement of an Iowa-based advocacy group has generated more than 3 million page views on YouTube, fueled by chain e-mails claiming the clip is evidence the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee intends to disarm the U.S..
Florida's St. Petersburg Times received an e-mail that warned of Obama's plan to "unilaterally disarm our nation" and stated, "You do not have to check Snopes to determine if this is true or false. ... Watch and listen to Obama's own words."
WND also received an e-mail suggesting the Democratic National Committee is supposedly pressuring YouTube to remove the video clip before it leaks out to too many viewers and damages Obama's chances of winning the presidency.
The video, however, was originally posted on YouTube by the Obama campaign itself on Oct. 22, 2007, and has been seen – in its various repeat appearances on the site – well over 3 million times.
Does it give evidence of a plan to disarm the U.S.?
In the clip, Obama pledges to "cut tens of billions of dollars" in defense spending, "cut investments" in missile defense systems and "slow our development of future combat systems."
In addition to budget cuts and curtailing weapons research and development, Obama concludes the video by pledging to refrain from developing new nuclear weapons, to negotiate with Russia to take intercontinental missiles "off hair-trigger alert" and to "achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals."
Whether such promises constitute an endangering level of disarmament or not is a subject hotly debated on YouTube itself.
One viewer commented, "How will you 'protect the American people' without a powerful defence (sic)? R & D is mandatory to keep ahead of the threats, and develop new and better ways to support and protect our troops when they go in harms (sic) way."
Another viewer agreed with Obama's plan, saying, "Wow. So that's where all my money is going. … Man we are over-kill when it come (sic) to producing a lot of weapons for this country."
Obama originally made the video clip to garner the endorsement of Caucus4Priorities, an Iowa-based group that would likely agree with the latter viewer that advocates shifting federal funds from defense spending to social programs.
The Democratic candidate thanked the group in the video's opening remarks.
The video was made last October as Obama was attempting to win Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus. Obama pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards to win the caucus but lost the Caucus4Priorities endorsement, as the organization backed Edwards instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)