John Stephen's Donation Difficulties

Correct (4.00 / 3)

NH does not have a functional campaign finance system, either with respect to disclosure or restrictions. To the extent there is any enforcement, historically it is only when someone files a complaint. Or the media gets interested, like the Gene Chandler scandal. And he was let off with a wrist slap.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 19:34:29 PM CDT

Corporate Contributions (4.00 / 2)

We COULD have passed the legislation, House Bill 1367, that would have prohibited contributions from corporations.  The House approved, and Governor John Lynch was going to sign.

But the Senate, with 14 Democrats, "tabled" it.  What happened?  The Deputy Attorney General said he thought it was constitutional, and it was supported by the Granny D group and by the Secretary of State.  I guess we got behind the 8 ball on that one?  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 20:25:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Don't think that is accurate (4.00 / 1)

Under that law each llc could have had a PAC, so that contributions could have been made through a series  of PACs. You would have to have a law limiting the total amount that any individual could donate to pacs contributing to state elections, similar tom the overall federal limit. The bill just would have required one more step in the money laundering process. It was a feel good bill that did not address the problem of corporate influence effectively.    

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 20:49:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shameful (0.00 / 0)

Of course it's accurate.  A PAC would have had to be created, which would require double-disclosure to the Office of Secretary of State.  AND THE MONEY COULDN'T COME FROM THE CORPORATE TREASURY.  Why, Kathy, oh why did Senate Democrats oppose that?  And since the election is close by, I don't really want to start naming names out of my desire to see some of them win, but this was shameful.  

Did YOU ask them not to support it?  Shameful, Kathy.  One of the more shameful things Democrats were a part of this past year.  If we want to continue this discussion, we shall -- even if I'm thrown off www.BlueHampshire.com for doing so.  You can't spin this one, and you know it.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 21:04:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's how it would work (0.00 / 0)

Donut shop llc 1 manager forms donut shop 1 PAC. Members of llc donate to PAC.  PAC donates to candidate.
Repeat with 20 different donut shop llc's.  The fact that the members of donut shop PAC 1 also donate to Donut shop pacs 2 to 20 would not have been prohibited under that bill.
BTW - of course the money comes from the business, in the form of salary or dividends or other distributions. Especially in the type of business we are talking about here, closely held businesses where the treasury is controlled by one owner.

If you want meaningful reform and disclosure with teeth, I am with you, but that bill did not solve the problem.  

If you want the last word on this go ahead, as the diary is about Johnny and the Donut Dollars, not the disagreement we had on the campaign disclosure bill.

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 21:27:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Soooooo...... (0.00 / 0)

.....why didn't you want the bill to pass, and did you ask the Senate Democrats not to pass it?  After all, we had an excellent public hearing in the House, and the House Election Law Committee on a bi-partisan vote approved it.  Then the House voted for it.  We had an excellent public hearing in the Senate.  No opposition.  Didn't see you there.  Then it disappeared in the Senate hole, even though I had been given assurances by the leaders of the Senate Election Law Committee that all was fine and it was going to pass.  

I've been around in the House and Senate for a long, long time Kathy, and I know what happened.  Well, I don't know what happened, and would certainly like to hear.  So I'll give you another word.  

And the bill that didn't have "teeth," as you surmise, was supported by the Granny D group, the Secretary of State, and would have met with no legal conflict according to the Deputy Attorney General.

Oh, did I mention that former Senator Clif Below, whom I think we both deeply respect, had proposed this back in 2000 when he was in the Senate -- we had cosponsored it back then -- and he supported it in quite lengthy (he's like that) testimony to the New Hampshire House Election Law Committee.  It was also supported by the AFL-CIO.  So how and why did it "disappear" in our Democratic Senate?  

To paraphrase a great Democrat, I'll wait until hell freezes over for your reply.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 21:46:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Stephen's idea of closing the donut hole. (4.00 / 4)

But seriously, let's see if Mr. Cullen goes after this as strongly as has has with Guinta.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 20:14:54 PM CDT

ha (4.00 / 5)

do you suppose Fergus will be cruller to Stephen or Guinta?  

sanctimonious purist/professional lefty

---

by: susanthe @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 20:21:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"(Sigh) Time to make the don...ations." (4.00 / 3)

---

by: elwood @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 20:29:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just finished watching the WMUR clip. (4.00 / 2)

This is infuriating.

It is open corruption that just happens to be lawful.

It would be as if I could give $15K to a candidate instead of $5K because I happened to move 3 times in the course of an election cycle.

And this is not chump change we are talking about either.  It's a hair short of 100 grand.


birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 20:28:50 PM CDT

Why? (4.00 / 1)

Why does a Dunkin franchise want to buy a governors race in NH? $96000 is a lot of donuts.

I hope this is a wake up call for the next legislature to adopt some meaningful reform measures with teeth. But putting that aside, Johnny Stephen needs to explain the relationship and why he thinks it is ethical to bypass the spirit of the law.




"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 21:02:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

Because they can, because in New Hampshire corporations are allowed to contribute from their treasuries.  They shouldn't be, and the House has three times passed legislation prhobiting it, but the Senate, with the majority of Democrats during the past two Sessions, has defeated it.  And those corporations can make those contributions without the double-disclosure that is required if they do it through a PAC, in which case they can't write a check from their treasuries.

I wonder if our NH Democratic Party has ever received such funds?  Let's continue this discussion as you wish. Shameful.  We do love the dialing for dollars, don't we.  

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 21:07:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wrong target. (4.00 / 1)

You can't regulate the recipient by focusing on the actions of the donor.  When it comes to individual natural persons, you can't make essentially positive behavior negative (define as a crime) because of some incidental consequence.
The state, which authorizes the creation of artificial corporate persons, can regulate the behavior of such corporations, but has no jurisdiction over corporations created elsewhere --ergo, no enforcement powers.  Which is why I am suggesting that corporations engaged in interstate or international enterprise should be required to be federally chartered.  The powers and obligations of artificial persons can be specified, as witnessed by our various constitutions of the union and the various states, which are themselves corporations.  You might call them parent corporations, empowered to regulate what they create.

A voluntary exchange, give and take, is an inherently positive/beneficial/non-injurious act.  Declaring legal behavior illegal on the basis of likes or dislikes is a bad practice.

If expectant public officials are soliciting and accepting anticipatory bribes from non-citizens, that ought to be a mark against their candidacy.  As should profligate spending on propaganda.  Why Republicans expect voters to believe that individuals who manage their own money recklessly are going to be prudent managers of the public purse is a puzzlement.  

---

by: hannah @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 01:59:28 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If it's not criminal, it should be (4.00 / 1)

Some statute, like, say, "The per-human limit is $5000. Any person knowingly attempting to exceed campaign donation limits shall be fined one percent of his or her total net worth or $100, whichever is higher" would bring this kind of crap to a crashing standstill. This guy can't remotely pretend to have not been aware he was breaking the limits. (also I like the idea of net-worth percentage in assessing fines, rather than fixed dollar amounts)

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

---

by: RealNRH @ Fri Aug 27, 2010 at 22:07:44 PM CDT

What if all the Dems (0.00 / 0)

...stopped patronizing DD?

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 11:30:54 AM CDT

Took me a moment (4.00 / 1)

I had to go back and read through all the comments before I realized "Oh, Lucy isn't saying that people are talking down to Dartmouth Dem."

Not purchasing from Dunkin' Donuts, got it.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

---

by: RealNRH @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 11:38:51 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I won't go there :) n/t (4.00 / 2)

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 11:38:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My apologies to Dartmouth Dem. (0.00 / 0)

I didn't realise that my suggestion was ambiguous.  But it did occur to me that I'm a lot less likely to stop into a Dunkin Donuts now than I was last week.

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 12:20:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No apology necessary! (0.00 / 0)

Always appreciate a good laugh. . . . Hope you have a restful weekend, Lucy.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 12:23:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Publish a list (4.00 / 2)

of the proprietors and the Dunks they own. No sense and hurting the innocent bystanders, in a drive by approach.

The GOPers would do this in a heartbeat. Perils of the free market, and all.

Whack-a-mole, anyone?

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 11:43:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

On further review.... (0.00 / 0)

Now that I've looked at the underlying story, it appears that the Dunkin Donuts franchises in question are in Massachusetts and Connecticut, so perhaps a boycott of local owners is premature.

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 12:56:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But GREAT... (4.00 / 2)

for our waistline!!

2012 starts today.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sat Aug 28, 2010 at 16:08:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]