The Natives Are Restless! Or…

On February 8, 2013, in FEC Tony, republiCon, by tommy

…”Money Down The Rathole!”

OK, deeply in debt, The Party Of Cooked Books sent out a tweet: “The MN DFL Chairman bragged that “never before has our party been more powerful.” Fight back! bit.ly/W3GQac #mngop #mnleg #stribpol”. That link in that tweet? Takes folks to the MnGOP’s website (screenshot is to the right), where they’re asking folks for some dough. Except, some folks are not really happy with the MnGOP!

Here’s my favorite comment (so far), by “Larry” —

“Until the conservatives grow some balls, I will not give any more money to put down the rathole!”

Say, Larry? It’s not the lack o’ ‘nads that’s the real problem with today’s MnGOP that makes donating to it a “rathole” – it’s their Cooked Books that makes it a rathole; it’s things like this!

And, that’s just one of many the MnGOP cut to the Feds to pay for their past misdeeds.

That’s just the past; there’s mighty good reason to think that future donations from The Party Faithful will go to paying for past misdeeds yet again!

Today’s MnGOP is indeed a rathole, and it’s for the old-fashioned reason: they EARNED it.

(cross posted at MnProgressiveProject.com; comments welcome there)

Tagged with:
 

In Part 1 of this continuing Cooked Books series, we looked at how FEC Tony Sutton’s MN GOP couldn’t (wouldn’t?) accurately report to the FEC how much they owed a vendor they hired to ensure accurate FEC reports. In Part 2, we noted there are now 2 citizen watchdog groups looking into the MN GOP’s Cooked Books — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – which nailed ‘em last time (the MN GOP got smacked with a near-record $170,000 fine), and Common Cause MN. In Part 3, we looked at how a payroll deductions “no, NO!” that got the MN GOP in trouble last time seems to be a pattern. In Part 4 we looked at the MN GOP using a strange address for one of it’s fundraisers.

In Part 5 we looked at at the official FEC Complaint – filed 12 Jan 2012 – by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”). In Part 6 we looked at the MN GOP misrepresenting their expenses. In Part 7 we looked at how the MN GOP categorized pay for a guy that they very well may have been paying to run for state senate – Lakeville’s Dave Thompson in SD-36. In Part 8 we looked at at a Mn GOP Campaign Finance Report line item that begs the question: did the State GOP pay for a lawyer for a State Representative’s drunk driving case?

In Part 9 of the continuing Cooked Books Series we looked at a Mn GOP Campaign Finance Report line item that looks mighty clear: when it comes to paying rent, these Republicans are deadbeats! In Part 10, we looked at an internal Mn GOP reports (presumably, leaked to Politico) that show just how far behind in rent those Mn GOP deadbeats are. In Part 11 we looked back at the 2008 Mn GOP Convention in Rochester, where then-Chair republican Ron (in a must-see YouTube) infamously said:

“At the end of the day, those that are criticizing us are to be shamed – because the truth will get out and the truth shall set us free.” — Ron Carey

Yeah, “right.”

In Part 12 we took a quick look (a real quick look!) at the Mn GOP’s Federal Elections Commission Report covering the month of April 2012. What that report showed is the MnGOP still believes it can spend more money in a month than it takes in. Hey, why not? After all, they ARE the “Party Of Fiscal Responsibility”, aren’t they? In Part 13 we looked at how these Financial Geniuses reported to the FEC they were in debt to themselves.

Seriously. Can’t make this stuff up.

Today we’re going to take a look at the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board’s “Findings and Order in the Matter of the Complaint of Common Cause Minnesota regarding the Republican Party of Minnesota and others” dated 13 July 2012.

Long story short? The Keystone Kops would be proud – let’s look!!!

When I saw the tweet (from @TheUptake, and if you’re on Twitter and you’re not following them – you should!) I went to go pop some popcorn; I knew this was gonna be good!

Was NOT disappointed!!!

From page 4:

In his deposition, Mr. Sutton, states that the lawyers knew that they were working for some as yet non-existent entity that would pay them. For example, Mr. Sutton testified that he verbally informed Tony Trimble that his work on the recount was “separate from his party work.” He says: “I remember telling him at the time that this recount was separate from the party stuff, especially once you guys brought out the advisory opinion saying that a recount fund could be set up.”

Mr. Sutton’s recollection and understanding of the events concerning his retention of counsel to assist with the recount was contradicted by each of the attorneys that he hired. All three lawyers testified that they understood they were working for the RPM. Mr. Sutton alone suggests that the lawyers understood that they would be or were working for an independent entity. In fact, after CTAP came was formed, the law firm of Trimble and Associates had Mr. Sutton sign a guaranty agreement confirming that the RPM was responsible for its fees. (emphasis added)

Too funny! I can almost imagine Tony “The Check’s In The Mail” Sutton tellin’ the Campaign FInance Board: “Who ya gonna believe – me, or yer lyin’ eyes?”

From page 6:

During the course of this investigation, the Board requested and received various records from the RPM, including accounts payable aging reports and invoices. However, the RPM is not able to produce records or worksheets that would allow the Board to reconcile amounts from the payables aging reports to the federal and state reports of unpaid obligations. As a result, the Board is not confident that even the RPM’s amended reports are accurate.

“…the Board is not confident that even the RPM’s amended reports are accurate.”

Well, that’s why we call ‘em “Cooked Books”!

From page 9:

David Sturrock testified that he became RPM treasurer on June 29, 2009, and served through January 19, 2012. During 2009 and 2010, the RPM had in place a minimal set of budgets, reports, policies, and procedures to ensure treasurer authorization of expenditures. Mr. Sturrock testified that he received and reviewed reports on a weekly basis. In 2009, the RPM processes for spending money were not as formal as the Board would recommend for an association of the RPM’s size. However, they were minimally sufficient to support a conclusion that the requirement for treasurer authorization of expenditures was met.

However by the end of 2010, whatever financial controls had been in place had deteriorated.
.
.
Additionally, if there had previously been treasurer control of regular spending, it was gone. Mr. Sutton personally took over control of spending late in 2010.

“Minimally sufficient” – “deteriorated” “…it was gone.”

That’s the Party of Fiscal Responsibility, in action!!!

Page 10:

While regular spending appeared to be out of control, not even the most rudimentary budgets, approvals, or controls were in place for the costs undertaken by the RPM for the 2010 recount.

Can’t make this stuff up!!!

Nor this, from page 11:

Mr. Sturrock testified that during 2010 he did not know that the party unit had obligations that he was unaware of. He testified about what he learned late in 2011:

A. Mr. Huettl advised me very shortly after Mr. Sutton’s resignation that there were bills, invoices, not entered into the system which were not known to me. He described them in general terms. And that, then, directly led to the process of bringing in Mr. Veckich and undertaking the internal review.
Q. Okay. What was your reaction to finding out from your – from Mr. Huettl informing you of that?
A. Surprise, disappointment, concern for the party.
Q. When Mr. Huettl provided you with that explanation or that information, I should say, did he provide any explanation as to why that information was not provided on the report?
A. He made one reference, that he was under direction not to share that information with me.
Q. Did he indicate who gave him that direction?
A. Mr. Sutton.

Ruh – ROH! Let the blame game begin!!!

Page 13:

A significant problem with the RPM’s approach to reporting is disclosed by the following exchange during Mr. Huettl’s deposition:
Q. In 2010 when an invoice was given to the compliance company, was it at that point always approved for payment or were invoices given to them that were not approved for payment?
A. No, they were all approved. Whether they were — But we didn’t know — There wasn’t an order of when to pay them yet, but they were all approved to be eventually paid, yes.
In other words, if the RPM had received an invoice but it was not yet approved to be paid, it never went into the accounting system and, thus, was never shown on a report. This practice would result in a violation of the requirement that all unpaid obligations be included on periodic reports.

This little exchange is telling; it’s Huettl talking about Sturrock:

Q. Did you make anyone aware of your knowledge of these unpaid invoices other than Mr. Sutton, who already was aware?
A. I did not.
Q. So when you prepared Mr. Sturrock for his periodic presentations to the executive committee, you did not inform him that there were unpaid bills?
A. I did not inform him that there were unpaid bills, not at that time.
Q. So you were aware that he was presenting as accurate an inaccurate report?
A. I was aware of that, yes.
Q. Now, you said you didn’t inform him at that time. I presume that means you meant — means that you informed him at some later time?
A. After Chairman Sutton had resigned.

So Ron Huettl, the Mn GOP’s Finance Director, knew KNEW – that he was withholding information that caused David Sturrock, the Mn GOP’s Treasurer to give inaccurate reports – because Tony Sutton, the Mn GOP’s Chair, told him to.

Brilliant!!!

More Huettl:

Q. Did you have any responsibility for the Campaign Finance reports that were filed with the FEC?
A. No. As finance director they were presented to me for my review, but I did not approve them. In 2010 I was learning, you know, the ropes of the job, basically, so I wasn’t qualified enough to know what the reports should look like. That’s why we have a compliance company. But it’s not my responsibility, though, to approve the reports. (emphasis added)

But, what’s the “compliance company” say ’bout that?

Q. Does your company work with the Republican Party of Minnesota on preparing its reports that are filed with the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board?
A. We’re a federal reporting company. When we have state parties as clients, as a courtesy we will, you know, in the case of Minnesota we’ll load up the information into the database, but we don’t provide any assurance. We don’t provide any assurance on our federal reports either. We put these reports together.
As for the Minnesota one, basically we did that. We did data input into the database, with the information they provided us, and then provided it to their decision-makers for approval and filing, things of that nature.

In further testimony:

A. We don’t go back and say, gee, is this everything, it’s not an accounting firm that we have.
Q. Sure.
A. We just – We do recordkeeping and reporting for these organizations. If we get the records, if we have the documents, then, you know, we will put those into the system. In the case of the Republican Party of Minnesota, we didn’t get the mail. (emphasis added)

Hmmm… “Thats why we have a compliance company” versus “…but we don’t provide any assurance.”

Can’t make this stuff up!!!

Oh, and about THIS one?

as a courtesy

Well, as much as the “compliance company” was charging, that “courtesy” was the least they could do!!!

From page 16:

To summarize, in 2010 the RPM had a finance director, who was recently promoted from telemarketing and who testified that he knew next to nothing about Campaign Finance Board reports and professed that it was not his job to review the reports in preparation for the treasurer’s signing them. The RPM had a chair who was busy with fundraising and his own business and believed that the finance director and the party unit’s compliance company were responsible for preparation of the reports. The RPM had a compliance company that disavows any responsibility for campaign finance reports other than to put data into a system and print out the reports. And finally, the RPM had a treasurer who placed all of his reliance on these three individuals. Given that situation, it is no surprise that the RPM reports were inaccurate.

“..it is no surprise…”

Yep!

We’ll take a look at the rest of this 27 page document in our next installment of this continuing Cooked Books series — stay tuned!

(cross posted at MnProgressiveProject.com; comments welcome there)

While we’re waiting on career politician Eric Paulsen to announce his latest grifter-esque (shucks and jives like “Opie”; votes like Bachmann) Q2 2012 PAC shakedown fundraising totals, it’s important to remember “Opie” still has some ‘splainin’ to do from LAST quarter’s PAC shakedown fundraising totals.

On June 14th, 2012 the FEC sent Paulsen a letter (“Request For Additional Information”) about what they thought were “excess contributions” from a PAC from McKesson Corporation. Conveniently, for Paulsen, his response isn’t due back to the FEC until July 19th, 2012 – AFTER Paulsen announces his latest PAC shakedown fundraising totals.

And here’s just part of what the Federal Elections Commission is looking at:

Hmmm…. “excessive contributions”….

Hmmm… from McKesson…..

Hmmm… Hey, WAIT! I remember that name!!!

Less than a month ago, on June 19th, MPP Contributor Joe Bodell asked: “Paulsen voting for his own portfolio?” Well, it gets worse: apparently, not only did Paulsen vote on his own portfolio, he accepted campaign contributions from a company in his own portfolio.

Here’s exactly what it looks like: Paulsen owns stock in a company that will profit from the legislation he’s written AND he takes campaign contributions from that very same company.

Hey – works for Paulsen!

Here’s the kicker: Paulsen not only took campaign contributions, he took campaign contributions that might just be – according to the Federal Elections Commission – “excessive.”

Now, I don’t know if that’s illegal (I’ll find out – and if it’s not, it SHOULD be), but it sure looks unethical at best, and downright sleazy at worst.

Which might explain why it took Paulsen so long to sign on to the “Ban Insider Trading” (by Congressmen) bill, yes?

Hmmm…. it it possible there is more?

Stay tuned!!!!

(cross posted at MnProgressiveProject.com; comments welcome there)

In Part 1 of this continuing Cooked Books series, we looked at how FEC Tony Sutton’s MN GOP couldn’t (wouldn’t?) accurately report to the FEC how much they owed a vendor they hired to ensure accurate FEC reports. In Part 2, we noted there are now 2 citizen watchdog groups looking into the MN GOP’s Cooked Books — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – which nailed ‘em last time (the MN GOP got smacked with a near-record $170,000 fine), and Common Cause MN. In Part 3, we looked at how a payroll deductions “no, NO!” that got the MN GOP in trouble last time seems to be a pattern. In Part 4 we looked at the MN GOP using a strange address for one of it’s fundraisers.

In Part 5 we looked at at the official FEC Complaint – filed 12 Jan 2012 – by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”). In Part 6 we looked at the MN GOP misrepresenting their expenses. In Part 7 we looked at how the MN GOP categorized pay for a guy that they very well may have been paying to run for state senate – Lakeville’s Dave Thompson in SD-36. In Part 8 we looked at at a Mn GOP Campaign Finance Report line item that begs the question: did the State GOP pay for a lawyer for a State Representative’s drunk driving case?

In Part 9 of the continuing Cooked Books Series we looked at a Mn GOP Campaign Finance Report line item that looks mighty clear: when it comes to paying rent, these Republicans are deadbeats! In Part 10, we looked at an internal Mn GOP reports (presumably, leaked to Politico) that show just how far behind in rent those Mn GOP deadbeats are. In Part 11 we looked back at the 2008 Mn GOP Convention in Rochester, where then-Chair republican Ron (in a must-see YouTube) infamously said:

“At the end of the day, those that are criticizing us are to be shamed – because the truth will get out and the truth shall set us free.” — Ron Carey

Yeah, “right.”

Today we’re going to take a quick look (a real quick look!) at the Mn GOP’s recently filed Federal Elections Commission Report, covering the month of April 2012. Here’s the summary page:

OK, see line 6 (c) – Total Receipts? Here’s the income: $144,103.48

Line 7 – Total Disbursements (highlighted, above)? $146,191.49

Hmmm… Looks like deficit spending to me! But hey – what’s the problem with spending more than ya took in, when you’ve only got (not counting unpaid Emmer Recount Bills!) $989,201.60 in unpaid bills?

And here’s my favorite part of the Mn GOP’s spending; it’s from Schedule B – Itemized Disbursements:

(link here for close up)

OK, it’s a little small, so:

United States Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 202290003 — Civil Penalty — 04/12/2012, $15,000.00

Don’t be surprised if there’s another Civil Penalty levied down the road – or, for that matter, a criminal investigation into the Mn GOP’s Cooked Books.

OK, why do I say that? Read the May 18th, 2012 Amended Complaint filed by Common Cause MN with the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board. This relates to their original January 5th, 2012 complaint. And this is but one reason; stay tuned!

RepubliCon Ron was quoted above: “…and the truth shall set us free.” It’s NOT looking that way at all; the truth might land some GOPers in ClubFed.

In the meantime, remember – when it comes to the GOP, You Couldn’t Trust The GOP Then, You Still Can’t Now, And Tomorrow Won’t Be Any Different.

(cross posted at MnProgressiveProject; comments welcome there)

In Part 1 of this continuing Cooked Books series, we looked at how FEC Tony Sutton’s MN GOP couldn’t (wouldn’t?) accurately report to the FEC how much they owed a vendor they hired to ensure accurate FEC reports. In Part 2, we noted there are now 2 citizen watchdog groups looking into the MN GOP’s Cooked Books — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – which nailed ‘em last time (the MN GOP got smacked with a near-record $170,000 fine), and Common Cause MN. In Part 3, we looked at how a payroll deductions “no, NO!” that got the MN GOP in trouble last time seems to be a pattern. In Part 4 we looked at the MN GOP using a strange address for one of it’s fundraisers.

In Part 5 we looked at at the official FEC Complaint – filed 12 Jan 2012 – by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”). In Part 6 we looked at the MN GOP misrepresenting their expenses. In Part 7 we looked at how the MN GOP categorized pay for a guy that they very well may have been paying to run for state senate – Lakeville’s Dave Thompson in SD-36. In Part 8 we looked at at a Mn GOP Campaign Finance Report line item that begs the question: did the State GOP pay for a lawyer for a State Representative’s drunk driving case?

And yes, it sure looks like the Mn GOP paid a lawyer for a State Rep’s cruise through the ditch with an open bottle of vodka.

In Part 9 of the continuing Cooked Books Series we looked at a Mn GOP Campaign Finance Report line item that looks mighty clear: when it comes to paying rent, these Republicans are deadbeats!

Today in Part 10, we’re going to look at an internal Mn GOP reports (presumably, leaked to Politico) that show just how far behind in rent those Mn GOP deadbeats are – let’s look!


(image via Politico.com, from a story entitled “The disastrous Minnesota GOP” dated today!)

That top line, “Hub Properties Trust”? That’s the MN GOP’s landord — and note: 31 to 60 days late = $29,319.36; 61 to 90 days late = $34,424.00; over 90 days late = $28,814.86 for a grand total owing their landlord: $92,558.22!!!

What was that, that the MN GOP was saying all last year, travelling all over Minnesota?

Oh, yeah: “You can’t spend more money than is in your checkbook!!!”

Apparently, YOU can’t – but: the financially incompetent Mn GOP not only can, it DOES.

So, how is it that the Minnesota GOP – the self-proclaimed “Party Of Fiscal Responsibility” – gets away with stiffing their Landlord for office rent for so long?

Stay tuned!!!

And in the meantime, remember: You Couldn’t Trust The GOP Then, You Still Can’t Now, And Tomorrow Won’t Be Any Different.

(cross posted at MnProgressiveProject; comments welcome there)

“We’ve got to get our act together and stop spending money that we don’t have.”
–Michele Bachmann, 12/18/11, on Meet The Press

“Bachmann owes more than $1 million in presidential campaign debt” –Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 3/23/12

In Part 1 of this continuing Cooked Books series, we looked at how FEC Tony Sutton’s MN GOP couldn’t (wouldn’t?) accurately report to the FEC how much they owed a vendor they hired to ensure accurate FEC reports. In Part 2, we noted there are now 2 citizen watchdog groups looking into the MN GOP’s Cooked Books — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – which nailed ‘em last time (the MN GOP got smacked with a near-record $170,000 fine), and Common Cause MN. In Part 3, we looked at how a payroll deductions “no, NO!” that got the MN GOP in trouble last time seems to be a pattern. In Part 4 we looked at the MN GOP using a strange address for one of it’s fundraisers.

In Part 5 we looked at at the official FEC Complaint – filed 12 Jan 2012 – by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”). In Part 6 we looked at the MN GOP misrepresenting their expenses. In Part 7 we looked at how the MN GOP categorized pay for a guy that they very well may have been paying to run for state senate – Lakeville’s Dave Thompson in SD-36. In Part 8 we looked at at a MN GOP Campaign Finance Report line item that begs the question: did the State GOP pay for a lawyer for a State Representative’s drunk driving case?

And yes, it sure looks like the Mn GOP paid a lawyer for a State Rep’s cruise through the ditch with an open bottle of vodka.

Today in Part 9 of the continuing Cooked Books Series we’re going to take a look at a MN GOP Campaign Finance Report line item that looks mighty clear: when it comes to paying rent, these Republicans are deadbeats — let’s look!


(link here to FEC.gov page)

OK, what’s that say in the screenshot, since the image is a little small?

Debtor = “Hub Property Trust” Amount = “$58,117.22″ Nature Of Debt = “Rent”

That’s from Schedule D, Line 10 of FEC Form 3X, filed by the GOP on 20 March 2012 – their most recent filing.

So, what did the Party Of Fiscal Responsibility owe their Landlord, say, just a year ago? Let’s look!


.

Debtor = “Hub Property Trust” Amount = “$14,461.60″ Nature Of Debt = “Office Rent”

That’s from Schedule D, Line 10 of FEC Form 3X, filed by the GOP on 24 March 2011.

What did they owe their Landlord, say, two years ago? $12,473.77

So what their own books show, is they’ve been stiffing their Landlord for a while.

But what were State Republicans saying, all over the state, all last year? “You can’t spend more money than is in your check book!!!”

Well, maybe YOU can’t, but: THEY sure do!!!

What I’d like to know, is how do they get away with it? Just ask yourself, Gentle Readers, what YOUR landlord would be saying if you’ve been stiffin’ him for 2 years (and the balance keeps getting bigger!)

We know what would happen if it wasn’t “rent” payments but rather “mortgage” payments.

So, how is it that the Minnesota GOP – the self-proclaimed “Party Of Fiscal Responsibility” – gets away with stiffing their Landlord for office rent for so long?

Stay tuned!!!

And in the meantime, remember: You Couldn’t Trust The GOP Then, You Still Can’t Now, And Tomorrow Won’t Be Any Different.

(cross posted at MnProgressiveProject; comments welcome there)

For more on the MN GOP fiscal scandal, click here: “By The Numbers: The MN GOP’s Cooked Books, Part 8″

For more on the Phil Young scandal, click here: “Part 6 – A Closer Look At Republican Mayor Phil Young’s Problems, or…”

Ladies and Gentlemen, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again and Again and AGAIN:

Reasonable People Cannot Reasonably Believe What GOPers Say.

Even the least dishonest of GOPers admitted that; remember what former GOPer National Chair Michael Steele once said?

“You have absolutely no reason – none – to trust our words or our actions at this point.”

True then, true today, and it’ll be true tomorrow too.

Reasonable People Cannot Reasonably Believe What GOPers Say.

(cross posted at MnProgressiveProject.com; comments welcome there)

In Part 1, we looked at how FEC Tony Sutton’s (pictured, right) MN GOP couldn’t (wouldn’t?) accurately report to the FEC how much they owed a vendor they hired to ensure accurate FEC reports. In Part 2, we noted there are now 2 citizen watchdog groups looking into the MN GOP’s Cooked Books — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – which nailed ‘em last time (the MN GOP got smacked with a near-record $170,000 fine), and Common Cause MN. In Part 3, we looked at how a payroll deductions “no, NO!” that got the MN GOP in trouble last time seems to be a pattern. In Part 4 we looked at the MN GOP using a strange address for one of it’s fundraisers.

In Part 5 we looked at at the official FEC Complaint – filed 12 Jan 2012 – by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”). In Part 6 we looked at the MN GOP misrepresenting their expenses. In Part & we looked at how the MN GOP categorized pay for a guy that they very well may have been paying to run for state senate – Lakeville’s Dave Thompson in SD-36.

Today in Part 8 of the continuing Cooked Books Series we’re going to take a look at a MN GOP Campaign Finance Report line item that begs the question: did the State GOP pay for a lawyer for a State Representative’s lawyer in a drunk driving case?

Here’s the background: endorsed GOPer 2010 candidate for Governor Tom Emmer’s campaign was getting hammered over alcohol related incidents, including a certain paid campaign staffer that happened to be Emmer’s kid. The campaign did NOT need any more alocohol-related incidents. Apparently, campaign “consultant” Mark Buesgens, state rep from district 35-B, didn’t get the memo – he got caught driving drunk with an open bottle of vodka.

Team Emmer’s Drinking Team promptly dumped Buesgens. Note the “note” at the bottom of the last entry: “final payment.”


(link to image here)

Now, the “official story” put out by Team Emmer’s Drinking Team was: “Hey! It’s just a coincidence, but: just the day before Buesgens got caught driving drunk into the ditch, we ditched him and he went to work for the State GOP!!!”

Yeah, “right.”

Let’s take a look at the timeline, as reported on Buesgen’s court records:

(link to image here)

September 18th, 2010 – Busgens gets caught in a ditch with an open bottle of vodka; blows a .16 blood-alcohol content.

September 24th, 2010 – Buesgens cited in Wright County

November 5th, 2010 – Guilty plea entered, case all but settled (final disposition November 23rd, 2010.

Now, remember how in the scramble to distance themselves from the guy in the ditch (with an open bottle of vodka), Team Emmer’s Drinking Team said “Hey! Buesgen’s isn’t OUR bad boy; he’s the GOP’s!!!”

Well, Buesgens does indeed show up on the State GOP’s state Campaign Finance Report for 2010:

Five days after blowing a .16, Buesgens has the good fortune of getting a check from the State GOP for $2,584.62.

Five days before his drunk driving & open bottle case is all but over, Buesgens pulls another check from FEC Tony & Co for $8, 615.38 — for a grand total of eleven grand: $11,000.00.

Coincidences? Or, do those checks look like “retainer & final payment” to defend a drunk driving & open bottle case?

At any rate, it sure looks like a sweet deal for Buesgens; he goes from about $7k a month with Emmer to $11k with the GOP!!!

I’d ask the State GOP for an explanation of why Buesgen’s $11k paydays – in about a month – was for actual work, and not just a pass-through to Buesgen’s lawyer, but: it’s not like they really like to talk to the ol’ TwoPutter. Not that I – or anyone else for that matter – would/should believe ‘em; after all: reasonable people no longer have any reason to believe anything a GOPer official – party nor elected – has to say.

The State GOP needs to prove that the $11k Buesgens got was for actual work – because it sure looks like it simply paid a defense attorney for the actual work of defending one of their own.

If I were a GOPer, I’d be mad as (heck) to think my political donations went to a defense attorney for a guy that drove drunk into the ditch with an open bottle of vodka.

As a progressive, I’m simply not surprised. After all, today’s GOP is morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest, and institutionally corrupt.

There’s a LOT more, in the GOP’s state and federal financial reports so:

Stay tuned!

And, let’s hope some prosecutor, somewhere, is thinking: “Isn’t it about time to get a Grand Jury together, and do a little digging ourselves?”

(cross posted at MnProgressiveProject.com; comments welcome there)

In Part 1, we looked at how FEC Tony Sutton’s (pictured, right) MN GOP couldn’t (wouldn’t?) accurately report to the FEC how much they owed a vendor they hired to ensure accurate FEC reports. In Part 2, we noted there are now 2 citizen watchdog groups looking into the MN GOP’s Cooked Books — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – which nailed ‘em last time (the MN GOP got smacked with a near-record $170,000 fine), and Common Cause MN. In Part 3, we looked at how a payroll deductions “no, NO!” that got the MN GOP in trouble last time seems to be a pattern. In Part 4 we looked at the MN GOP using a strange address for one of it’s fundraisers. In Part 5 we looked at at the official FEC Complaint – filed 12 Jan 2012 – by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (“CREW”). In Part 6 we looked at the MN GOP misrepresenting their expenses.

Today in Part 7 of the continuing Cooked Books Series we’re going to take a look at how the MN GOP categorized pay for a guy that they very well may have been paying to run for state senate – Lakeville’s Dave Thompson in SD-36.

Long story, short: for over 7 years, Thompson was a RWNJ Shock-Jock on AM radio in the Twin Cities. Looking for a better gig, he decided to run in 2009 against FEC Tony (pictured above) for state GOP Party Chair. Thompson lost; as best as I remember it, it really came down to this: Thompson wanted the $100k (+/-) that came with the job; ol’ FEC Tony would do the gig for free. Why would FEC Tony do the gig for free? That, gentle readers, is a story for a later day! At any rate, FEC Tony beats Thmpson for party Chair. Here’s where it gets interesting….

According to media reports, shortly after winning, FEC Tony & Dave Thompson agreed to a contract wherein Thompson would do consulting for GOP candidates. All told, the number being reported is Thompson has taken home a cool $70k.

Here’s the kicker: that $70k being reported, is being reported as coming from FEC reports. Because, the MN GOP hasn’t reported any dough being sent Thompson’s way on their State Campaign Finance Reports.

Which means for the MN GOP to NOT have any more FEC problems than they already have, ALL of the dough better have been spent for Thompson “consulting” for Federal Candidates only.

Stay tuned!

(cross posted at MnProgressiveProject.com; comments welcome there)

In Part 1, we looked at how FEC Tony’s (pictured, right) MN GOP couldn’t (wouldn’t?) accurately report to the FEC how much they owed a vendor to ensure accurate FEC reports. In Part 2, we noted there are now 2 citizen watchdog groups looking into the MN GOP’s Cooked Books — Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – which nailed ‘em last time (the MN GOP got smacked with a near-record $170,000 fine), and Common Cause MN. In Part 3, we looked at how a payroll deductions “no, NO!” that got the MN GOP in trouble last time seems to be a pattern. No surprise there!

Today in Part 4 of the continuing Cooked Books Series we’re going to take a look at how a reasonable person has no reason to believe anything a Republican says a vendor and what appears to be a fake address. While perusing the December 20th, 2011 MN GOP Federal Elections Commission (“FEC”) filing – covering the month of November 2011 – the following stuck out. Why? Because there simply isn’t an address in Minneapolis that has a street number of “7705.” Let’s look!

(link to FEC Report here)

OK, to recap so far: we know that you can’t believe what Republicans say, ESPECIALLY in FEC reports – after all, on December 20th, 2011 the MN GOP reported they only owed $542,005 when the real number was double that — and possibly closer to a cool $2 million. And, of course, there’s that $170,000 fine theFEC smacked ‘em with just a few months ago…

So when an address shows up with a street number that can’t possibly be in the city they say, well – that bears some digging into. And a simple mapquest search shows that that address is NOT in Minneapolis!

We’ll start with the company – “Fundraising Associates” – first. If you go to the Minnesota Secretary Of State’s office, you’ll find that “Fundraising Associates is in fact a bona fide company. Except, as noted in the preceeding link, it’s NOT at “7705 Tanglewood Court” – it’s registered at “4035 W 65th Street #427, Edina MN 55435.” And it’s registered to a “Zandra Wolcott.”

What type of building is “4035 W 65th Street”? It’s an apartment building. OK, no big deal there; a lot of people work out of their homes these days. But, what is “7705 Tanglewood Court”? It’s a duplex, smack dab in the middle of a residential area in Edina.

So, why would the MN GOP have a “Payee address” for a company that’s registered and apparently working out of an apartment listed to a duplex some other place? Hmmm….

… Better check the property tax records! Here’s what they show:

Owner Name: Golden Valley Microwave FDS
Taxpayer Name & Address: Norman M Gabrick, 4910 Malibu Drive, Edina 55346
Homestead Status: Non-Homestead

Who is “Golden Valley Microwave FDS”? A quick googlesearch indicates that it’s now a subsidiary of ConAgra Foods.

ConAgra Foods??!? Why is a vendor’s check going to a duplex owned by ConAgra Foods??!?

It’s not like “Fundraising Associates” hasn’t been listed on FEC Reports before… let’s look!

Yep – in 2010, in a “Minnesota-Bachmann Victory Committee” FEC Report, Zandra Wolcott was reported as receiving $25,000 — at the address registered with the MN Secretary Of State.

But now, a year later and now a MN GOP vendor, her checks are being sent to a “non-homestead” (read=”rental”) duplex a couple of miles away from her apartment/registered business address?

Why? Is that duplex just a sham address? Or is the MN GOP claiming that the money went to Wolcott, but it was really sent to someone else?

Those questions (and more!) I didn’t get to ask Zandra Wolcott. Here’s the only question I got to ask:

“When you gave your bills to the MN GOP, did you use your business address or an address for a duplex a few miles away from your office?”

I got to ask it, but: no answer. In an exceedingly short phone conversation, Ms. Wolcott referred me to Pat Shortridge at the MN GOP — and her attorney, Tony Trimble.

Yes, Tony “Recount” Trimble – the MN GOP lawyer, who’s recount bills the MN GOP may try to weasel out of paying.

Say, there’s a plan! Ask questions about a fishy FEC transaction to a former ENRON lobbyist – now running the MN GOP – and a lawyer that the MN GOP probably owes big bucks to! One can easily assume a response along the lines of “not intended to be a factual statement”, or, perhaps, “I only lied because I had to”

What we know, is there’s (stuff) in the MN GOP’s campaign finance reports that’s simply not true.

What we don’t know is who put down what appears to be a fake address on an FEC report – the vendor, or the MN GOP? And why?

And how many OTHER fake addresses has the MN GOP reported to the FEC?

In digging into this one, I’ve been hearing allegations of shell LLC’s and other sham addresses, etc that the MN GOP has been reporting.

So stay tuned — the best is yet to come!!!

(cross posted at MnProgressiveProject.com; comments welcome there)