A law student with ties to Greensboro has requested an official inquiry into whether Greensboro Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw violated state campaign finance law by failing to identify the source of 13 $100 contributions during her successful 2007 campaign.
Andrew T. Murphy, who filed the March 24 request with the NC Board of Elections, the Guilford County Board of Elections and the Guilford County District Attorney, is the founder of Stand Up Greensboro PAC, a progressive committee that charges that sitting council members “engage in overheated rhetoric and rehash the same tired arguments over and over again [while] Greensboro languishes and further falls behind competing cities around the nation, threatening to derail our city’s social and economic vibrancy.”
Stand Up Greensboro identifies Rakestraw, along with fellow Republican councilwoman Trudy Wade, as “candidates to beat” on its website, and is raising money to publish a print advertisement calling Rakestraw “wrong for Greensboro.”
Murphy notes that the Committee for Mary Rakestraw did not report the names, addresses, occupations and employers of 13 contributors who wrote $100 checks to the candidate. The Rakestraw committee’s 2007 year-end semi-annual report lists the $100 checks on a form reserved for aggregate individual contributions that explicitly states “optional form used to report NC contributions from individuals of $50 or less.”
Reached by phone, Rakestraw said Monday that she was unaware of any problems with her reports. The councilwoman said she thought it was possible that North Carolina statute did not require contributions of $100 or less to be fully reported in 2007.
The North Carolina statutes regulating contributions and expenditures in political campaigns state that all campaign contributions with the exception of those $50 or less must be listed in a statement that includes the name and complete mailing address of each contributor, the amount contributed, the principal occupation of the contributor and the date the contribution was received.
I surveyed year-end semi-annual reports for Greensboro’s 2007 municipal general election found that the other 17 candidates provided detailed information about $100 contributors, and reserved the aggregate individual contributor page for $25 and $50 denominations. In some cases, other candidates went beyond the requirements and provided detailed information about contributors who gave $25, $30 and $40.
Murphy also alleges that Rakestraw’s committee reported $3,500 in outstanding loan proceeds in its 2008 year-end report, but never submitted a proper loan proceeds statement. The loans were made by Rakestraw’s husband and campaign treasurer, Frank.
“You might say that I’m in good standing with Frank Rakestraw,” the councilwoman said in response.
The third complaint enumerated in Murphy’s letter is that Rakestraw accepted a $484 contribution from an entity listed as Skenes for City Council in 2007, and that no such candidate committee existed at the time. The last report from the Skenes for City Council committee posted on the Guilford County Board of Elections website is from 2005.
Rakestraw responded that whatever the status of the contributor’s committee, she did receive a check from Skenes for City Council.
Murphy’s letter warns that his political action committee is currently reviewing other campaign finance reports and might make further investigation requests in the future.
“City council members hold powerful positions within the community,” the letter reads. “Accordingly, Stand Up Greensboro believes that accurate and complete reporting of campaign contributions is not only the law, but also imperative to ensure fair and impartial decision-making on behalf of the people of Greensboro.”
26 comments:
glad to see more peopl get involved with these local campaigh contributions and the lax reporting.
people
What do you know about the push to get public financing for municipal elections in Greensboro, Keith?
Jordan you say this"The North Carolina statutes regulating contributions and expenditures in political campaigns state that all campaign contributions with the exception of those $50 or less must be listed in a statement that includes the name and complete mailing address of each contributor, the amount contributed, the principal occupation of the contributor and the date the contribution was received.
but remember that they also need to have company name along with their profession
a. Job title or profession; and
b. Employer's name or employer's specific field of business activity.
You're right, Keith. They do need to list their employer's name or employer's specific field of business activity. In trying to write succinctly, I left out an important requirement.
Since you report that this "committee" is making charges, will you please identify the committee members? I know you wouldn't report that a committee was taking some action without verifying that there is, in fact, a committee so I look forward to that additional information.
Roch, Stand Up Greensboro describes itself as a PAC, which presumably stands for "political action committee." If you have some information about Stand Up Greensboro not being properly registered with the NC Board of Elections, why don't you state it instead of sending me off on a non-specific errand? I received the letter, which is on Stand Up Greensboro letterhead and is signed by Andrew T. Murphy, from Andrew T. Murphy. Forgive me if I'm inferring too much, but your comment suggests you feel I'm withholding some vital piece of information.
How did the S'up Greensboro PAC register a domain name a day before the PAC was formed and four days before it opened a bank account?
Jordan, please focus. I did not say anything about the PAC not being properly registered, I am asking if you verified what you reported. You referred to a committee, so far the public face of this "committee" and the sole person mentioned on its website or election filings is a sole individual, yet I am confident you wouldn't be duped into reporting the activities as an individual as a committee so I am just asking us to confirm that what you reported to be a committee is indeed more than a single individual.
The only person I know of who is involved with Stand Up Greensboro is Andrew T. Murphy. You got me.
Roch, allow me to address the spirit of your question rather than the letter of it. You're assailing the legitimacy of this young man's project on the basis of the possibility that he might be acting alone (on the other hand, he may have cohorts who haven't braced themselves for the rough-and-tumble arena of the blogosphere). Young people have been known to inflate the significance of their activities, and to imply greater numbers in their endeavors than they actually have. Is it the worst sin? And if the reality of Stand Up Greensboro doesn't live up to its promise, then in six months the attention paid to Andrew will diminish accordingly; he'll have to trim his sails and start from scratch. That's natural. But agree with his stated agenda or not, I can't see how it could be anything but good to have an additional person add their voice to the democratic process, to really get active instead of complaining from the sidelines.
SSShhhhh...quiet everyone. Leave Andrew alone until he gets up his billboards. He'll produce more votes for Mary and Trudy than he can imagine.
And fyi, he's on facebook.
"can't see how it could be anything but good to have an additional person add their voice to the democratic process..." -- Jordan
I agree, Jordan. What I don't think is good is when journalists misrepresent the facts. If this is a committee you should verify that before reporting it as such.
There must be something in the water in Greensboro that makes local journalists averse to facts.
The previous threshold for aggregate contributions was $100.00.
Mary and Frank have been involved in local politics for a long time and were probably operating on their previous experience.
I would submit that this was an honest mistake.
Jordan, Roch is right and your "You got me" comment seems to be an attempt to diminish the fact that you made a mistake.
Calling a one man act a committee is in error and is certainly misleading.
Instead of addressing the "spirit" of his question why not just say that you made a mistake?
I don't understand your approach.
Tony, I'm happy to make corrections when I've erred in my reporting: Setting the record straight is why I'm in this business. That I ommitted mention of the possibility that Murphy might be the sole member of Stand Up Greensboro is not an error, and does not require a correction. Go back and read the post: It's about a law student, with references to a committee he set up.
It's poop like this, Jordan, that makes it hard to defend you against the cries of bias.
You wrote: "...a progressive committee that charges..."
Committee has a meaning. It does not mean a solitary person. Insisting that you were right to disguise Mr. Murphy's opinions as those of a group of people really seems like an attempt to give Mr. Murphy's opinions a boost. Mission accomplished, perhaps, but the subsequent accusations of bias are going to stick just a little bit more next time.
If the sticking point here is the number of people in a committee, it would help to remember that the reference to "committee" comes from "PAC" or "Political Action Committee." That designation is from the Board of Elections. It doesn't matter if it is a committee of several or a committee of one. The registration as a legal PAC is where the committee term comes from. Should we have separate designations? A "PAP," a Politically Active Person? A "PAM," Political Action Ministry? A "PAJ," Political Active Jerk?
Definition of committee:"a group of persons convened for the accomplishment of some specific purpose".
Had the person in question been a conservative I would expect a "Solo, Isolated, Solitary, Single, Lone Ranger Tries To Force Conservative Views" headline.
Some famous person, it might have been Calvin Coolidge, once said,"...this could go on ALL DAY!"
Oh Tony... how do you suggest we refer to the PAC in question upon second reference? "The committee, which might actually be just one guy..."
Is this what you guys do all day? If you have questions regarding the membership of Stand Up Greensboro and are opposed to speculation and rumor mongering, get on the horn and call the kid yourself.
We've already done that and written about it, but you guys are obviously dissatisfied with the answers we got.
Actually, Brian, I did inquire of Mr. Murphy as to the membership of the PAC. He told me there were other people but who was a secret. That's exactly why I asked above if Jordan knew who the members were.
Jordan says it's one guy, but reports it as a committee.
The one guy says it's a committee but won't identify any other participants.
The one last iota of value "professional" journalists have is the ability bring clarity to information -- that's it. It's just another nail in your coffin when your work is contrary to that and you actually defend obfuscation. To make it more insulting, you chastise us for caring.
Roch, I said Andrew T. Murphy may be the only member and I am unaware of any other members, not that he IS the only member. You and I have the same information. What is your argument?
Also: Stand Up Greensboro, like it or not, is by definition a political action committee. Even if it is just one guy, SUG is still a PAC.
I'm not chastising you for caring, Roch, I'm chastising you for nitpicking for its own sake.
Does this post qualify for Blog Fight of the Week?
Bottom line...do you think Andrew Murphy will influence two votes in November?
Let me rephrase...do you think he will influence two votes in the direction of his intentions?
Candidates love billboards and Karl Rove taught me to never mention your adversary by name.
Politics are funny. Maybe Murphy is campaigning "for" Mary and Trudy.
Let me go on another misogynistic rant and question whether "progressive committee" is the same thing as "left wing committee"?
I guess I'm just amused that we have "progressive" think tanks, committees etc. on the one hand, but "right wing" think tanks, committees on the other hand.
Kudos to Roch for demanding fair journalism and reporting that is based on facts. We don't agree on a lot, but we do agree on that.
We'll just have to disagree, guys. But keep in mind, my observation is not as a competitor or one who has anything to gain from raising irrelevant gripes. My interest, as I think has been demonstrated, is in seeing Greensboro fix its broken media's propensity to miss the important facts, often as pawns of others' interests.
Jordan got lead by the nose by Amiel Rosabbi. Murphy is doing the same thing. Disappointing for an otherwise superb reporter.
Post a Comment