Money Squabbles in Connecticut

NYT’s Empirezone:

As Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont were getting ready for their final debate today with Republican Alan Schlesinger, their campaigns traded barbs on money. This weekend, as Mr. Lamont donated another $2 million to his campaign’s coffers — grand total so far: $12.7 million — the campaign raised questions about $387,000 the Lieberman campaign reported spending on “petty cash” to pay for “volunteers” in the field during the days before the primary campaign.

Today, the Lamont campaign filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission and called on the Lieberman camp to release the petty cash journal it is required to keep.

The Lieberman campaign said it was in full compliance with the law and said, bluntly, it would release the journal when Mr. Lamont releases the joint tax returns he filed with his wife. (And each campaign has an online petition calling for the other side to do as requested.)

A nonpartisan campaign finance expert with a government watchdog organization tells us that while it is rather curious that Mr. Lieberman has so much money listed in petty cash, it is probably not illegal. The expert spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not want to wade publicly into an election dispute. Any final determination of the legality will be up to the F.E.C., which is investigating.

NOTE – The relevant statute from the FEC: “A political committee may maintain a petty cash fund out of which it may make expenditures not in excess of $100 to any person per purchase or transaction. If a petty cash fund is maintained, it shall be the duty of the treasurer of the political committee to keep and maintain a written journal of all disbursements. This written journal shall include the name and address of every person, to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. In addition, if any disbursement is made for a candidate, the journal shall include the name of that candidate and the office (including State and Congressional district) sought by such candidate.” (11 CFR 102.11.)

[Initial story comments are compiled and edited]:

Lieberman said he’d release the journal (as required by law) when Lamont releases something that’s *not* required by law? When did candidates win the right to bargain over whether they’ll obey the law or not?

“A campaign finance expert” = “Some people say” – since when does the NYT take its cues from Fox News?

I thought the Times didn’t use anonymous sources unless it supplied a good reason that the source had to remain anonymous. Why did the “campaign finance expert” have to remain anonymous? Is it Karl Rove? This unattributed quote does NOT meet the NYT standards for quoting anonymous sources.

“…probably not illegal”? I want my boss to pay me out of petty cash if it’s not illegal. Why would anyone pay FICA or income taxes if you can get paid out of petty cash?

My goodness, $387,000. Remember Whitewater? That was like a $25,000 investment the Clintons made? The New York Times didn’t take the position that “it is probably not illegal.” The New York Times pushed for a thorough investigation and that was chump change compared to Lieberman disbursing cold hard cash by the hundreds of thousands. If this is OK, we’re being gulled that there’s any such thing as a “Campaign Finance Law.” It’s a free for all.

The unquestioning “journalism” displayed by the NYT concerning the Lieberman campaign is an insult to their fellow journalists. What the Lieberman campaign has done is illegal. Why didn’t you state that in your article?

Glad to see the NYT’s sense of curiosity hasn’t been enhanced by the Judy Miller affair.