My Left Nutmeg, Connecticut's Democratic blog has been following the story, and the outcome? You probably don't know, because the media hasn't mentioned a word (except the New Haven Register)
The campaign of U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., has agreed to pay a $50,000 civil penalty for numerous violations in its disbursement of a large amount of petty cash in the senator’s 2006 primary fight with Ned Lamont.
The recent agreement comes three years after a complaint was filed by Lamont’s campaign committee.
Via the NHR:
The campaign of U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn., has agreed to pay a $50,000 civil penalty for numerous violations in its disbursement of a large amount of petty cash in the senator's 2006 primary fight with Ned Lamont.
The recent agreement comes three years after a complaint was filed by Lamont's campaign committee.
[...]
The Federal Election Commission opened an investigation in late 2006 after the Lamont campaign charged the senator had not accounted for a "slush fund" of $387,000 in expenditures labeled only as "petty cash."
The expenditures, mainly for get-out-the-vote canvassers, were made in the two weeks leading up to the hard fought primary vote in August 2006 - a campaign that ultimately cost $40 million.
The FEC found that the committee took out large amounts of cash on 14 separate occasions and gave it to "campaign consultants and volunteers who put cash in envelopes that were disbursed by canvassers, frequently in amounts well in excess of $100."
Campaigns may make expenditures of not more than $100 to any person or for a single transaction out of the petty cash fund, but are required to keep a written journal documenting the payments. Any payment over $100 needs to be made by check.
Also, the names and addresses of persons paid an aggregate in excess of $200 in a year are also expected to be reported and receipts maintained.
The FEC said the campaign failed to properly disclose the recipients of disbursements over $200 and to keep full records; misreported payments to two consultants and misreported a $75,000 disbursement. It also disbursed cash to recipients in excess of $100 and failed to keep accurate records.
So, what exactly is street money?
- Campaign workers will provide their go-between with a list of names from a voter roll in a particular precinct, usually a poor area with low-information voters (in the parlance of Sean Smith). They will promise the go-between a set dollar amount for every name that votes. The go-between will then go out and pay people to vote. At the close of the election the campaign matches the list given to the go-between and the cross-off sheet from the precinct's polling place and pay accordingly. In this scenario the campaign is paying for votes to be turned out with no questions asked.
A go between can turn these votes out however they want. It could be cash or it could be a free lunch. The point is that they are compensated for this and so are the people who vote for the candidate. It's built around quid pro quo and this is one of the most prevalent uses of street money that I've heard takes place in Connecticut.
- Street money is also used to pay people for work that they never do in exchange for their votes or their support turning out voters. A campaign might pay people in advance to be poll watchers, canvassers, or work phone banks, but the people will never show up and do the work. They get to walk away with money and the candidate gets their votes.
- Lastly, street money is used to pay influential community members for services never provided. These people can then funnel the money into vote buying or using their connections to pull in more voters for the candidate who's throwing cash around.
So now what?
Again via the NHR:
According to the agreement, the Lieberman committee made at least 600 payments totaling $121,965, which exceeded the petty cash limit of $100 per person. The committee also did not itemize its petty cash payments in its public FEC reports or "keep all the required records documenting them," the agreement said.
The FEC also said it had uncovered "no information and has made no finding" that Sen. Lieberman had "engaged in any wrongdoing in connection with the alleged campaign violations."
Nothing.
(from MLN):