Archive for: March 18, 2008

I can’t help myself. I need to know more about Mark Montiel complaint against Troy King.

Montiel says King raised $124,810 after the November 7, 2006 election. According to his FCPA reports, this covers donations from after the election to March 7, 2007, which is exactly 120 days after the election. State law allows a candidate to raise money

For a period of 120 days after the election in which the person was a candidate, but only to the extent of any campaign debt of the candidate or principal campaign committee of the candidate as indicated on the campaign financial disclosure form or to the extent of reaching the threshold that is required for qualification as a candidate for the office which he or she currently holds, or both. (Ala Code 17-5-7(b)(3))

King says that $25,550 was received before the election, but deposited later. This is presumably all the contributions dated 11/9/2006. The FCPA form, however, asks for the date the contribution was received, not when it was deposited. We’ll give him that for the sake of argument, however.

So $124,810 - $25,550 leaves $99,260 raised “after” the election. As quoted above, Alabama law would allow him to raise that money if it went to campaign debt or the filing fee. Montiel says his total debt totals $20,000. I’m not sure where he got that, so I’m going to use the $32,523.91 he reported on his FCPA reports as “Loans, interests, and other sources of income.” If we take that from the $99,260 that was “really received” in the 120 days after the election, that leaves $66,736.09 that wasn’t used to repay debt. Update: Figured out some stuff. King reported $20,000 on his Form 1A. So he raised $79,260 above his documented debt.

King’s response is that the law doesn’t limit the amount of “debt-repayment money” he can raise 120 days after an election. I dunno.

Maybe this guy is on to something, but I’m starting to think he may need a hobby. I’m certainly no fan of Troy King, but I’m not ready to say he violated campaign finance law just yet.

Mark Montiel, an often-appointed judge who consistently fails to win elections, filed a complaint against Attorney General King recently. In 2006, Montiel lost the Republican primary against King for attorney general.

Montiel said state law allows candidates to raise campaign contributions for 120 days after an election to retire debt and collect the election qualifying fee for the office. He said King’s campaign finance reports — on file in the secretary of state’s office — show he raised more than $124,000 after the Nov. 7, 2006, election.

That is far more than the $20,000 debt King reported and the qualifying fee for the office, Montiel said.

Now he’s also aiming in on Secretary of State Beth Chapman.

Montiel’s letter said Chapman’s campaign finance reports show she paid $19,752 to Beth Chapman and Associates after her election. Chapman said that was mostly reimbursement for travel and other expenses incurred during the campaign.

Montiel also pointed out Chapman’s campaign paid $22,000 to her husband and two teenage sons after the election. Chapman said that was for working in her campaign, doing everything from public relations to preparing fundraisers to distributing yard signs.

I’ll wait to see what the attorneys say about King’s campaign finances, but I know it isn’t unusual for candidates’ campaigns to pay family and even themselves for reimbursement of expenses, and people pay family as campaign staff fairly regularly. Reimbursing her lobbying business is a little fishy, and she should probably come up with some receipts for that. I have no reason to doubt she will, though.

I like to give back some link love, so I wanted to point out that my debate highlights has been picked up by Third Party Watch, Reason Magazine’s Hit and Run (and thanks for ripping the video without linking to me — I’m trying to keep my traffic down), Punditry by the Pint (you too — gotta keep that traffic down because I hate readers), Jacob Grier, MS Brew, and Get the Picture.

Apparently, the word is spreading and this might go down as the greatest political speech in Alabama for 2008:

“Yo, what’s wrong with the beer we got? I mean, the beer we got drank pretty good, don’t it? I ain’t never heard nobody complain about the, uh, beer we have. It drank pretty good. Budweiser. What’s the names of some of them other beers? Budweiser and what else? Miller. Coors. It drank pretty good, don’t it.”
– Representative Alvin Holmes, 78th Alabama House District

I hope Alvin Holmes lives forever.

I’ve read this article twice now, and I’m still not sure what it’s about. I think Lowell Barron was at a forum saying that home rule provisions wouldn’t lead to silly ordinances and oppressive local government (or something). Then he said the Democrats in Jackson County wouldn’t let that happen and he was almost attacked or something. Deputies had to protect him.

The article doesn’t give many specifics other than that, so I don’t know. The Republicans will probably give the people who heckled him a medal, though. Not only were they attacking Democrats and Lowell Barron, they also used violence when someone suggested allowing local governments limited home rule.

People get really defensive about the Alabama Constitution of 1901, don’t they?