In all Fairness...

Needless to say I'm currently looking at Goodlatte's reports and they're just a tad bit longer and convoluted.  These puppies are gonna take some time to digest, but here are the quick and dirty highlights just looking at the '08 cycle reports.

1. Goodlatte has $1.3 Million in the bank on 12/31/07.
2. Looking at just the 08 cycle, he has shaken down raised more money from PACs than individuals.
3. 96% of his PAC donors are "Business PACs" according to the Center for Responsive Politics
4. Goodlatte's own PAC the "Good PAC" (can he say that with a straight face?) has raised $185,000 and spent $152,000.
5. Good PAC spent $43,977 at the Homestead in Hot Springs, VA on 8/14/2007 for "lodging and general catering".  At those prices, they better have gotten some Client #9 Real Man of Genius level service.
6. Of the $185,000 raised for '08 only about $32,000 is from individuals.  The rest are from other PACs such as Altria, Capital One, etc... See, here's the thing, corporate PACs can only give a certain amount to Goode's campaign.  So Goodlatte sets up a "leadership PAC" essentially allowing his corporate puppet masters supporters to "double up" and max out twice.  It's really rather convenient how it works.
7. Goodlatte is on the Agriculture committee supposedly to represent his many agriculture based constituents (we love us some farms in the 6th).  Yet, PACs for such corporations as BASF and Bayer are bribing investing purchasing showing their support right along with Croplife America, which you may know by their previous name "National Agricultural Chemical Association" which is the trade group for pesticide manufacturers.  Not really a farmer-centered "donor coalition" we have going on.

These bullet points are endless and really each deserves it's own post to looked at in more detail and with context.  The point I hoped to make is that this man has more corporate backers than the Chamber of Commerce.

Stay tuned same 81Blue cave same 81Blue time we got a lot more where this came from.

WTF! Call the Lawyers?

Nothing is better than catching a campaign lie while on the attack so I did a little fact checking on the Richardson campaign. I went ahead and looked at Sam's FEC finance reports as Rick suggested and either Drew is holding back some serious heat or they need to hire someone more competent at opposition research.

The first thing I noticed is that Sam has filed each finance report THREE TO FIVE TIMES, that's an original filing plus two-four amended reports for EACH and EVERY Quarter. Anyone who has even thought about doing campaign finance knows that there are more red flags in that than there are at a Chinese military parade.

Even more interestingly is that the original reports were filed and signed by campaign Treasurer Kathleen D Tucei. Many subsequent reports were filed and signed by Treasurer Sam Rasoul. This is perhaps the most absurd move in campaigns since Dukakis wanted to play bobblehead in a tank.

A person who signs an FEC report as Treasurer is personally liable for the report. Let me be clear: Sam Rasoul THE CANDIDATE is now liable for both criminal and civil actions the FEC would bring against the Sam Rasoul for Congress Campaign.

Why would they put themselves in that situation?? Richardson worked for the god damned FBI, do you really think he's not looking into this deeper than Howell's email suggests? A simple arithmetic mistake on those reports would lead to a letter from the FEC and allow Drew to say something along the lines of "Not only was the Sam Rasoul campaign found to be filing inaccurate finance reports, but Mr. Rasoul himself has been personally implicated in actions brought by the FEC. In fact, he signed the reports himself which yada yada yada"

It's going to take me some time to look over the FIVE reports Sam filed for January 1 - March 31 2007 and rinse repeat the process for Q2, 3 & 4 but I'm very curious to see what "amendments" needed to be made four times over.

Did this have something to do with both Kathleen Tucei and Rick Howell leaving? Enquiring minds want to know.

Mud Meet Sling

Drew did they teach you that at the Academy?

Drew sent a clear warning shot at Sam in his opening salvo. Well I should say first mass communication, because this isn't the first time Drew has taken a jab at Sam. In his original stump speech a few weeks back Drew had the line "Being a Congressman isn't an entry level position". I know at least a few folks who thought that was a little too harsh. Then again, they are committee members who publicly support Sam. I haven't heard that line for a few weeks now or any recent "OMG, can you believe he said that about my BFF Sam" recently, so seems that particular line of attack has been axed.

The new line came to us courtesy of the Richardson campaign in an email signed by Rick Howell. That's Sam's very own former Campaign Manager Mr. Rick Howell. Who also reposted his comments on his blog Rick Howell Speaks.

he's only raised 1.9 % of his funds from the Sixth District. Keep in mind, too, that we're talking about someone who has been campaigning for more than a year.

Before Democrats nominate a candidate with caucuses in April, and a convention in May, I don't think it's too much to ask that Mr. Rasoul explain exactly why he's so dependent upon money from Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Illinois, and, specifically, Louisiana (where, for example, he raised slightly more than $29,000, nearly 39 percent of his total for 2007). What's up with this?

There's also a troubling matter of non-disclosure about some of his donors. The Center for Responsive Politics noted that a full 9% of his donors had "no information about the donor's employer and/or occupation ... listed." Bob Goodlatte, by the way, had fully complied with the disclosure requirements.

So, again, as I said before in my previous post, about this race, Democrats in the Sixth District have to absolutely pick the best candidate, the one with the most experience to run a credible race against the incumbent. All this again suggests very strongly that Drew Richardson is the best choice here.

note: emphasis in the original