This is near the top of AJC.com, and appears to be the work of AJC reporters and hasn't appeared to hit the wires yet. At least, I have't seen anything yet. The whole story is at
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/0605/12frist.html
(free registration required most likely.) Looks like Frist borrowed 1.44 million under one of his reelection accounts and gave it to the other? Seems kinda fishy to me...
Whole story below the fold, but the best quote:
"Looking at this, it appears they did not want to show that Frist 2000 was the actual borrower of the $1.44 million," said Larry Nobel, who worked 23 years at the FEC, 13 as the agency's general counsel... "It appears to me to be misreporting. They misreported who the actual borrower was. Misreporting is illegal," said Nobel, now executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group. "The question is whether the FEC would do anything about it."
Edited down so it doesnt violate any copywright stuff. I've got confidence you can find it...
Frist's finances questioned
Experts see violation of campaign rules
By BOB KEMPER bkemper@ajc.com and TOM BAXTER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/12/05
Hundreds of thousands of dollars Frist's supporters had given him to run for the Senate were dwindling at a rapid rate. Much of that money was lost in a stock market investment that experts say was out of line with the way candidates traditionally invest campaign funds. Frist's campaign also took on more than $1 million in debt so that it could repay Frist for interest-free loans he made to his campaign six years earlier.
And then, in a decision experts say violated federal campaign regulations, Frist filed reports with the Federal Elections Commission that made it difficult for his contributors and political foes to determine just how bad off his campaign finances were.
Frist's aides, who have given contradictory responses to questions about Frist's finances, deny any wrongdoing...Frist wanted to get back $1.2 million he had lent his campaign in 1994, when he first ran for office.
But Frist 2000 Inc., with just over $1 million available, didn't have enough money to pay Frist back and continue operating. Frist solved that problem by having his campaign take out a $1.44 million bank loan, at a cost of $10,000 a month in interest, and used that money to repay himself.
Assuming the new debt would have drained all the operating funds Frist 2000 had available, according to FEC documents. Yet that didn't happen. Even after taking out such a huge loan, Frist 2000 still looked rich on paper -- much richer than it actually was.
That's because Frist made a third key decision -- one that experts on campaign disclosure call highly questionable -- to not report the new debt on the FEC paperwork filed by Frist 2000, as required by law.
Instead, Frist told the FEC that the $1.44 million loan was held by another committee he controlled, the Bill Frist for Senate committee, which had been around since his first race in 1994. That fund was virtually dormant by 2000, with just $50,000 in the bank.
Campaign finance experts also described as highly unusual Frist's decision to report the $1.44 million debt under the name of an old committee rather than his current campaign operation.
It's legal for campaigns to transfer debts and money between two committees as long as both committees report the transfer -- something Frist 2000 failed to do.
"Looking at this, it appears they did not want to show that Frist 2000 was the actual borrower of the $1.44 million," said Larry Nobel, who worked 23 years at the FEC, 13 as the agency's general counsel.
Nobel was one of two former FEC officials who reviewed Frist's FEC and loan documents at the request of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
"It appears to me to be misreporting. They misreported who the actual borrower was. Misreporting is illegal," said Nobel, now executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group. "The question is whether the FEC would do anything about it."
FEC officials said last week they were examining the Frist documents, but have not reported their conclusions.
...
Now only $290,000 remains of the $1 million investment, and Frist 2000 owes the bank $349,0000, Catignani said.