Skip to main content

I agree with most that the last few ads are the best ones, but was dissappointed that there are no other ones to come.

This ad trying to make it clear that "a vote for Lieberman is a vote for war".  A no brainer that Lieberman is a referendum on Iraq.  Even Chris Matthews hinted as such.

The ad with the car crash is good, uses humor, and is just plain fun to watch.  Everyone looks at a car crash.

However, I think Lamont missed one important issue.  The sympathetic voter who disagrees with almost everything Lieberman now stands for but used to like him at one point.

The Petty Cash scandal would have been a great opportunity to tie in Joe's loss of integrity from what he was once perceived to represent.

Plus, an ad on the undocumented slush fund would put Joe on the defensive for the last few days.

First, the media was told they would see the accounting.  Now they won't and people who were paid large chunks told the media they never were asked to document their expenditures.

Lamont files an FEC complaint over Lieberman's expenditure of petty cash
Mary E. O'Leary, Register Topics Editor


A review of the use of consultant services by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's campaign, which in turn dispensed large amounts of petty cash, raises questions about the practice.

But interviews with some of the people who were brought in to help get out the vote for the campaign in the two weeks before the hotly contested Aug. 8 primary described situations that appear to be at odds with some campaign finance requirements.

At least one man who was hired as a consultant, Tomas Reyes of Oxford, said he has yet to be asked by the campaign to turn over material for the journal, which would justify expenditures of $8,250.

Also, Reyes and another man, Daryl Brooks of New Haven, who ran a consultant service, said they each got one check from the campaign for their services, but they are listed in the third quarter campaign finance report as getting two checks, for a total of twice what the men said they received.

The report lists Reyes as getting two checks for $8,250, one on Aug. 4 and one on Aug. 15. Brooks received $12,200 on Aug. 11 and another check for the same amount on Aug. 15, according to the Lieberman report. Both men said this was inaccurate.

Several young men, who were paid $60 a day out of petty cash to canvass in Bridgeport, said they were paid in cash for aggregate earnings over $200.

Rob Dhanda, 18, or Stratford, said he earned $480 in cash over several weeks, while Walter Ruilova, 18, also of Stratford, said his total was an estimated $360 in cash. Ruilova estimated there were about 30 teenagers working out of the Bridgeport office, each earning $60 a day in cash, over a few weeks.

Michelle Ryan, a spokeswoman for the FEC, would not comment on specifics of the Lamont complaint, but said "in terms of itemization, it is required once the aggregate total to a recipient is in excess of $200."

In a past, courant article - someone legally barred from working with absentee ballots was hired by the Lieberman campaign to hand out absentee ballots.

Prenzina Holloway was fined $10,000 in July 2005 and ordered not to distribute absentee ballot applications or to assist voters with the ballots for two years, after the State Elections Enforcement Commission found that she had forged a voter's signature in the 2004 election.

Holloway acknowledges working for Urban Voters and Associates, a company paid $17,550 by the Lieberman campaign since September to do "field work." But she said she isn't involved in the company's absentee ballot operations.

"That is just a no-no," she said. "And I know it is a no-no."

But five people at a Vine Street housing complex for the elderly have told The Courant that Holloway and another person came to their doors to give them absentee ballot applications, and a security worker at another complex on Woodland Street said Holloway tried to get into the building to distribute applications there. Holloway was barred from the building after getting into a verbal altercation with the worker after he made supportive comments about Lieberman's main challenger, Ned Lamont.

Is Lamont missing a golden opportunity to "pivot" and convince "sentimental voters" that Joe has lost his last redeaming quality?

If the polls are accurate,  Lamont should take the chance to expose the violations.  He now can safely claim that Joe Lieberman has broken FEC campaign disclosure laws.   If all these kids were paid in cash and aggregates exceeded 200$ Joe Lieberman broke the law.

I don't know why Lamont is hesitant to hammer this.

Originally posted to EdwardsRaysOfSunshine on Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 06:26 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah, it is too bad they... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mayan, m16eib

    didn't get something on the air regarding that scandal.

    But from what I have seen in the past, candidates often drop the negative and go positive right at the end of a campaign.  

    When all is said and done, a voter goes into the booth and has to cast thier vote for someone.  I think candidates want to leave a good last impression of themselves to be fresh on the voters mind when they cast thier ballot.

  •  I think one of the problems with that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    m16eib, kath25

    argument is that it's been pretty much ignored in terms of any legal response.  If the election commission opened its mouth and said something (we've all asked!!) then he could nail Joe's ass to the boards.

    Otherwise it falls into one of those "negative ad" columns and if I hear one more person complain about "negative ads" (e.g., talking about an elected official's record, honestly and directly) then I'm going to throw up.

    •  I wonder if the consultants said no (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      m16eib, juliesie, kath25

      I have always had a problem understanding how Hillary Clinton's person,

      Howard Wolfson was given on loan to Lamont after the primary.

      We know they must have had conversations about this.  I just hope Lamont is not getting Hillary/DC consultant advice that is holding him back.

      Joe really has 1) broken disclosure requirements and 2) had the blood relative of the owner of the company Lieberman hired breaking the law.

      From what I've heard the psychosis of Joe is that people who disagree with him on Iraq, health care, and many other issues will still vote for him because they do not see him for the slimy politician he is.

      •  I think there is a back story coming... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Thom K in LA, sphealey, m16eib, kath25

        after the election.

        Apparently (I've heard) that Ned was advised by
        DC Dems to pull his punches against Lieberman while they convince the Lierman to withdraw as an independent.

        Then the DC Dems all backed off with regard to any support for Ned - which amounts to an endorsement of Holy Joe.


        And I hope like hell that Hill and Bill are not advising through their consultants behind the scene.

        •  google howard wolfson (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          he is Hillary's communications director on loan to lamont after the primary.

          I hope we don't find out there was a split on whether to air an ad attacking joe breaking campaign laws.

          If lamont was smart this was all a sandbag and they will unleash Tomorrow an ad called "Integrity" about joe's at least 2- different law breaking activities from 2 different newspapers.

          •  Yuck! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Hill/Bill/Wolfson scare the shit out of me with regard to Ned.

            I suppose they think we should all laud them for "loaning" him to the campaign.  I mean, doesn't he have a free will?

            Oh, wait.  Now I get it.  After the election they will claim Ned lost because he wasn't a good candidate...afterall, he had Wolfson there to advise.


    •  The FEC has procedures . . . (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sphealey, mayan, m16eib

      . . . they're not generally a fast-moving agency, however.

  •  If Liarberman can't control his petty cash (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    m16eib, kath25

    how the hell can voters trust him to handle the taxpayers trillion $$$$ budget??!!

  •  Mental Note to Self (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the next time the odious opponent is handing out cash to "volunteers," go take the cash, preferably in violation of finance rules, and hit the local media with my story.

    Let's keep the pressure on. Call the Courant: (860) 241-6200 or 1-800-524-4242. Ask for the news department.

    With any luck, this could be a front-page story on Sunday. Many more people read the Sunday paper. It would be sweet for this to be the last big story in the campaign.

  •  Petty cash scandal - elevator speech? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    No elevator speech there. It's corrupt, dishonest and scummy, but I don't see the 30 sec commercial in that.

  •  Where is the big dawg? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Clinton's playing it safe and supporting both sides

  •  Give Ned some netroots LUV$$$$ (0+ / 0-)

    Here's the link to his webpage. Look for the Contribute button:

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site