disclose, denny

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Hastert for Congress Unitemized Contributions

Hastert For Congress Committee is the PAC named in David Rose's article as being of particular interest.

Rose writes:
"According to some of the wiretaps, the F.B.I.’s targets had arranged for tens of thousands of dollars to be paid to Hastert’s campaign funds in small checks. Under Federal Election Commission rules, donations of less than $200 are not required to be itemized in public filings.

Hastert himself was never heard in the recordings, Edmonds told investigators, and it is possible that the claims of covert payments were hollow boasts. Nevertheless, an examination of Hastert’s federal filings shows that the level of un-itemized payments his campaigns received over many years was relatively high. Between April 1996 and December 2002, un-itemized personal donations to the Hastert for Congress Committee amounted to $483,000. In contrast, un-itemized contributions in the same period to the committee run on behalf of the House majority leader, Tom Delay, Republican of Texas, were only $99,000..."
Sibel seems to suggest that Hastert for Congress isn't the only PAC that was involved with these bribes - she asks:
"Why doesn’t Hastert disclose all the contributions (those under $200), to all his PACs (he has several) for the years between 1997 and 2001?"
I've rummaged through the official Hastert for Congress filings (from here) and picked out the contributions from individuals.

There isn't anything that is conclusive, but the main thing that seems to stand out is that Hastert's non-itemized contributions remain quite stable over the period, even while his stature grew, and his itemized contributions exploded. This seems to support the story-line that Sibel suggests - i.e. that the unitemized contributions in those early years were 'padded' somehow...

If Hastert simply discloses his data, then he can remove the cloud over his name...

----
Unitemized Individual Contributions (itemized in brackets)
1996
Q1 $25,000 ($25k) (#1)
Q2 $20,000 ($19k)
Q3 $29,000 ($66k)
Q4 $5,000 ($18k)
total - $79,000

1997
1H) $26,000 ($65k)
2H) 23,000 ($70)
total - $49,000

1998
1Q) $17,000 ($48k)
2Q) $8,000 ($12k)
3Q) $20,000 ($64k)
4Q) $2,000 ($23k)
total - $47,000

1999
1H) $45,000 ($236k)
2H) $34,000 ($243k)
total - $79,000

2000
1Q - $17,000 ($17k)
2Q - $15,000 ($41k)
3Q - $23,000 ($141k)
4Q - $ 12,000 ($110k)
total - $67,000

2001
1H - $65,000 ($329k)
2H - $45,000 ($359k)
total - $109,000

2002
1Q - $11,000 ($162K)
2Q - $15,000 ($116K)
3Q - $32,000 ($306K)
4Q - $8,000 ($137K)
total - $66,000

2003
1Q -$38,000 ($308K)
2Q - $34,000 ($294K)
3Q - $25,000 ($240k)
4Q - $16,000 ($314K)
total - $113,000

2004
1Q - $16,000 ($408K)
2Q - $36,000 ($446K)
3Q - $49,000 ($460K)
4Q - $20,000 ($218K)
total - $121,000

2005
1Q - $37,000 ($362K)
2Q - $19,000 ($329K)
3Q - $34,000 ($352K)
4Q - $10,000 ($313K)
total - $100,000

notes
1. I can't find the Q1, 96 report. However the Q2 report has the YTD Individual Contributions listed as $89,000, and the Q2 as $40,000. Therefore the Q1 Total from Individs is $49,000. I've split that in half (itemized/non-itemized) which is the same ratio as Q2. (N.B. the actual split has been redacted for some reason)
2. note that there is some rounding

crossposted at wotisitgood4

2 Comments:

At 1:32 AM, Blogger Miguel said...

Lukery,
Great research! I also think it is appropriate at this time to mention the FEC investigation. As this campaign hopefully gains momentum, it appears the primary point the Hastert side will make is that "we've turned the appropriate records over to the FEC and asked them to expedite their investigation".

It's a great sounding line, but the key question we in the Disclose, Denny campaign all must ask is "Can we trust the FEC to really investigate this?"

I think we all know the answer to that question, especially considering the following fact about all FEC enforcement procedures:
"It requires the votes of at least four of the six Commissioners to take any action. The FEC can close a case at any point after reviewing a complaint."

The FEC is composed of 6 Commissioners, 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats. To make a finding against Hastert, all 3 Democrats and at least 1 Republican would have to rule against the Speaker. This seems to be why Speaker Hastert seems so confident that the FEC investigation will either exonerate him or come to nothing. It is hard to imagine one of the Bush appointed FEC commissioners voting to sanction Speaker Hastert.

Just something to keep in mind. I think we need to find a way to make the case that Hastert needs to disclose regardless of the FEC findings.

 
At 9:39 AM, Anonymous lukery said...

as always, you are a day ahead of your time...

CREW & FEC have responded

 

Post a Comment

<< Home


View My Stats