I'm Unreliable!

As you no doubt gathered, given that I haven't been blogging.

That's because I'm busy as a little bee at my new office.  Look for me there in the coming days.

In other fraud news!

Kenneth Starr (not THAT Ken Starr), a NY financial advisor, donor to various Democratic causes and committees, and business partner with Marvin Rosen (he of former DNC glory) has been charged with stealing $30 million from clients.

See reports here, and here, too.

Glass Houses

Oops.  It seems the Connecticut campaign funders are a little careless with the public fisc.

The state paid $192,261 to a private contractor for information technology, and no SEEC supervisor approved the purchase or verified that the amount billed represented services rendered, according to the audit.

"That is uncommon," Jaekle said. "It is possible the state paid much more than what it actually got."

There's no truth to the rumor that the  agencies finances were managed by Chris Ward.

The Longmont Saga Continues

See here.

What began as a meeting about nuanced campaign finance rules quickly turned into a fiery debate about the role of government in approving the rules that it must play by. Several citizens showed up denouncing the city's current law, declaring that they were "thoroughly disgusted" with the way that campaigns operate.

Looking Good in Kansas

I may need to revise all my personal stereotypes about Kansas.

One way to get money out of politics

Suck it all up for onesself and one's chosen beneficiaries.

Piercing the Marriage Veil

A Maine Judge has ordered the National Organization for Marriage - a 501(c)(4) "qualified non-profit"- to reveal its donors to state officials.

In a ruling dated Sunday, U.S. Magistrate Judge John Rich III said the National Organization for Marriage, which contributed $1.9 million to the repeal campaign, should give documents relating to donors and fundraising dating back to Jan. 1, 2009, to the Maine Attorney General’s Office.

Is this an easier case than Doe v. Reed?  Harder? Unlike Proposition 8 in California, these donors gave to the group, not a political committee.  Unlike Doe v. Reed, these people gave to a group, and didn't sign a petition (what some deem a "legislative act" entitled to less confidentiality).  The expectations of donors to a (c)(4) QNC are what, exactly?  If they've read NAACP v. Alabama (a 52-year precedent, by the way), they probably think they are protected from identification.