CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 12, 2009 05:47 PM UTC

Long-Simmering Campaign Funds Scandal Explodes on McInnis

  • 82 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Not good, folks, as the Denver Post reports:

Just before leaving Congress in 2004, Scott Mc Innis’ staff said the exiting Republican wanted to use part of the $1.3 million left in his campaign fund to launch a nonprofit political organization that would address education, breast-cancer research and conservation.

Five years later, no such organization exists. Instead, the largest charitable donation McInnis made from his campaign funds was to a wilderness area named for McInnis as he was leaving Congress…

Most of the money that has been spent from McInnis’ congressional campaign fund went not to charity but to like-minded candidates and to promote Republican ideals, which McInnis said was always his intent. [Pols emphasis] He decided direct giving would be more efficient than the bureaucracy of a nonprofit, he said…

McInnis instead created the Western Way Political Action Committee and estimates he’s given more than $250,000 through that fund to about 40 candidates over the years.

About $96,000 has been given to charities through Western Way. But despite his staff’s singling out of breast cancer as a focus, health groups received relatively little of the money in the past five years. The total was compiled from Federal Elections Commission disclosures.

McInnis gave $51,500 from the PAC to McInnis Canyons, the Grand Junction-area wilderness named for him…

As the stories began to circulate last week about Scott McInnis’ heavy use of Western Way PAC in the last few months, clearly as a vehicle to build name recognition in advance of his gubernatorial campaign, one of many questions being asked was “what about the charity?” Liberals had attacked McInnis back in 2007 over the same issue, after all, but nobody paid much attention to his leftover money in the 2008 cycle since it went basically unused after McInnis aborted his Senate run early on (unless you lived in Garfield County, apparently).

Now that the facts of the matter are out, there’s really nothing about this situation that makes McInnis look in any way good. The simple fact is, he told the press in no uncertain terms in 2004 that he would give this money to charity and he didn’t. Any personal relationship he may have had to the cause he said he would give the money to is irrelevant, or if anything worse for him now that he’s reneged on his pledge. Bottom line: he used the money he said he would spend on a health care charity to fund Republican candidates, $50,000 for Ego-ponymous Canyons, and a good amount in the last few months to operate his much-criticized “shadow campaign.”

And let’s not forget the $5,000 to Tom DeLay’s legal defense fund.

Seriously, folks–anybody want to tell us how the optics on this are not absolutely disastrous? How does this not paint a picture of exactly the kind of dishonest, irresponsible “Tom DeLay Republican” opponent Josh Penry rails against in his stump speeches?

Tweet
Share

Comments

82 thoughts on “Long-Simmering Campaign Funds Scandal Explodes on McInnis”

  2. Scott McInnis has had one bad press story after another.  

    Josh Penry handled this issue like a pro by declining to comment.

    Scooter just continues to bumble around while writing out big checks to his high paid advisers.

    1. The only genuine political donation from the 2008 FEC filings show a $10,000 donation to Mike Hesse’s “Western Heritage” 527, and that’s it.

      No Republican candidate received Western Way support from McInnis in the 2008 cycle, despite it being a ridiculously challenging environment for Republicans.

      Instead, expenditures show Western Way is McInnis’ operational slush fund to pay for meetings, fuel, food and minor staff support in order to maintain an on-going political operation dedicated to McInnis. More was spent on sending flowers than on supporting the Republican Party or its causes.  

        1. Considering that McInnis’ own spin to Jessica Fender was that he was helping Republican candidates instead of trying to find a cure, I think it’s particularly hilarious that even his lame spin is total bullshit.

          I mean, you would think at least some token contributions to embattled GOP incumbents would show up in his reports. But no.

      2. Any Republican candidate that receives help from other Republican PACs always gets excited

        Mark Hillman’s PAC contributed to me during the HD56 run, as well as to many other Republicans – I had never recalled McInnis’s PAC helping any Republican candidates directly with contributions

                1. You were bemoaning that everyone was complaining about swastikas and yet no one was footnoting the bill. I pointed out that you hadn’t done any footnoting either. The ball was in your court but then you turned it into some schoolyard taunt.

                  I’m glad to hear you’ve read “the healthcare bill.” You realize there’s more than one bill out there?

        2. Got a question for you.  I know your saving of LA with your Jethro Bodine movie director career didn’t quite work out for you but if you are not going to run for political office next time around, I have a serious endeavor which could bring you big national attention if you’re interested.

            1. that with his vast resources and connections, wouldn’t it be nice if he took on the task of freeing the three American hikers held by Amanutjob’s Irianian captors.  It could be his Bill Clinton moment.

              1. The most heroic aspect of the mission would be getting called an unhelpful appeaser by John Bolton when we should have bombed the shit out of them instead…plus he might get redacted from Dick Cheney’s Christmas Card list.  

              1. I’m more than happy to hear any suggestion, but I don’t solicit suggestions that start with demeanment

                That said – I’m more than happy to hear out your suggestion – I would never ask anyone to kiss a ring, but I do want a cordial dialogue – so, what’s on your mind?

                Regarding Secretary Bennet – I don’t know if your game is high stakes enough, bro?  

    2. Two for sure: Republican candidates for Garfield County Commisison, incumbent John Martin and newly elected Mike Samson.

      Also noted, McInnis’s PAC donated to Western Heritage which bought the pro-Samson/Martin TV ads featuring….Scott McInnis.

      Republlican political operative, Scott Shires, also had a 527-hand in the GarCo commissioner races.

      Should dots be connected between the pair? Their political SOP’s sure read the same.

      1. Is there any connection between Western Heritage and the other groups involved in the GarCo races other than the fact that they supported the same candidates?  Any common donors?  Shared expenditures?  Common board members?  Common messaging?

        Without any evidence at all linking the two, I will assume that your post is nothing more than an attempt to shill for Huttner and co.

  4. that with the way the web works the campaign has already begun. All this little stuff adds up and in another 6 months people’s view of him will be locked in.

    And that small group is what frames all the stories once the campaigns starting hitting everyone. A year from now he’ll be left wondering why all of the press, discussions, etc are already set.

    1. For the cynical, there’s nothing surprising that a politician promised magnificent acts of charity and instead used the money to promote themselves.

      And unless he spent the money on hookers and blow, there isn’t much of a story here to capture the attention of the public.

      My 2 cents.

      1. Unless he spent the money in some illegal manner, this really isn’t much of a story. He changed his mind about giving the money to charity. Some people may not like his decision and they are certainly free to criticize him for that but is that really the reason voters will either vote for him or against him in the Republican primary. I don’t believe it is.

        Mr. McInnis’ biggest problem is the fact the Republican base does not like moderate conservatives. They prefer people like Mr. Penry who espouse views like teaching creationism in science classes in our schools. The real battle for the Republican nomination, especially at the state Republican convention, will be over who convinces the right-wing fanatics they support their viewpoints and there is no doubt Mr. Penry has a leg up in that category.  

        1. Promise to use left over campaign money to fund breast cancer research and then turn around to spend 100 times more money on signs bearing your name instead.  

          Surely voters won’t pay attention to such nonsense.  

          What planet are you on?

          1. Don’t you think the electorate will be more interested in the fact that Mr. Penry endorses teaching creationism to their children in K-12 science classes than how Mr. McInnis spent left over campaign funds?

            Mr Penry’s endorsement of teaching creationism will certainly have a much more direct impact on Colorado’s children than how Mr. McInnis decided to spend his congressional campaign funds. At bottom, the story in the Denver Post establishes that Mr. McInnis changed his mind and nothing more. That has no impact on what our children are taught in school or how we are going to build and maintain our infrastructure or how we can maintain and enhance our way of life here in Colorado.  

              1. and cited the other day here on Pols. I’ll look it up over the lunch hour and get back to you. The editorial stated that Mr. Penry endorsed Janet Rowland’s position that creationism should be taught in public school science class.

              2. WesternSlopeThought’s post last Saturday under the thread “Obama to Appear in Red Territory.” It is the last post on that thread last Saturday. I’ll look at the Sentinel’s website over the lunch hour.

                1. The Conservative Daily Sentinel Editorial Board slammed Penry’s ignorance when they endorsed his opponent:

                  “Moreover, some three quarters of a century after the Scopes trial, we find it nothing short of astounding that Penry readily acknowledges he has no objections to the belief of lieutenant governor candidate, Janet Rowland,  that creationism, read that, the religious belief that the universe was created in six days a few thousand years ago and that the Almighty rested on the seventh, should be taught in science next to evolutionary theory. Bad idea, that is.” -The Daily Sentinel Editorial Board

                  1. Josh is just more concerned about the rock of ages than the age of rocks. Besides if dinosaurs roamed the earth but 2000 years ago as these guys believe there will soon be more fossil fuels and no need for green energy.

                    1. I am sensitive to those with faith based belief systems, but the environmental/energy policy ramifications of those beliefs drive to conclusions incompatible with logic.

                    2. that teaching creationism in schools is total crap, only a handful of fringe kooks believe in it, and it has nothing to do with science.

                      The big hunk of Colorado voters in the middle (the ones that decide statewide races) are not going to take someone who supports teaching creationism in schools seriously.

                      Its a total Palin move. It jazzes up the excitable hard right base for support, but seriously erodes your credibility with normal people.  

                  2. And we’re still talking about this guy as legitimate Gov contender?  Really?

                    I mean I never got the problem- it takes about 3 minutes to “teach” creationism.  But it’s not science.  And to insist that teaching it in some other context rather than in science class is somehow inferior while teaching it in science class is somehow  neutral is just bizarre.

                    Creationism is not science. Yes people believe it – but that doesn’t make it science.  Go ahead and use the three minutes out of the school year.  But do not do it in an intentional way to cast it as an direct counter to actual science.

                    Or – create your charter school that is going to teach creationism as science. It will be a real budget saver- because the whole curriculum can be boiled down to something because God says so, some math (not too much), a little gramme and some geography. I’d estimate 3, maybe four years tops.

                    1. is when they’re going to start teaching magic in the classroom. For too long British children have had the corner on magical abilities, and we need to start leading the world in magic again.

                    3. Not only the Brits- but the Russians (Durmstrang) and the French (Beauxbatons).

                      Not only that – but the Russian Harry Potter series has more than than twenty books – what’s being hidden from us?

            2. took mythology classes instead of those too difficult science classes?  Could be that they just don’t know any better.

              “So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.” -Bertrand Russell  

      2. I tend to agree with you. On it’s own face, this is disappointing and unsurprising to me but not an overwhelming blow that will sink his campaign.

        On the other hand, if faux pas like this start to add up, then each episode becomes a larger issue that speaks directly to his ethics, or lack thereof.

        And I’d really like to see an answer to Twas’s question–who did he support in 2008? That could prove to be far more damaging.  

        1. This alone, not that big a deal. But what I see happening is he’s following the Bob Schaffer playbook and ignoring all these problems. And they are piling up and in total – they are destroying his campaign.

          McInnis appears to be campaigning like it’s 2000. The bad news is when he gets creamed many will take it as a moderate can’t win the GOP primary when the real reason will be an inept campaign.

      3. This would be entirely different if McInnis went out and raised money for the purpose of funding cancer research and then used the money to forward his own purposes.  That is not the case here.  These contributions were given to Scott for the purpose of promoting this political campaign(s) and career.  I highly doubt any of the contributor gave money with the expectation that it would be used for any purpose other than promoting McInnis, so what is the big deal?  He is using it for the exact reason the money was given!

        1. Just before leaving Congress in 2004, Scott Mc Innis’ staff said the exiting Republican wanted to use part of the $1.3 million left in his campaign fund to launch a nonprofit political organization that would address education, breast-cancer research and conservation.

          Five years later, no such organization exists.

          It goes to McInnis’ credibility–and not just to a false promise made to breast cancer survivors–and whether his word counts for something.

          1. a single cent that was raised under the pretext of being used for cancer research?  What McInnis wanted to do with his campaign funds back in 2004 was not a promise and in no way obligated him to spend his funds in a certain way.  Did he make a specific pledge to a breast cancer organization, or any other charity?  All I am reading is that his campaign organization were discussing what his current intent was.  I fail to see any promises that were made.  

            As for his purposes of supporting conservation, his donations to McInnis Canyons certainly qualifies.  The Friends of McInnis Canyons group that supports the Conservation Area does an excellent job of public outreach and trying to make the area easily accessible to the public.  It is a beautiful area, should you have time when you are not trying to make senseless attacks against Republican candidates.

            1. when that is not the issue? Pretty dog, but doesn’t hunt. But if you think McInnis’ pledge on using a huge campaign fund to help combat breast cancer was meaningless to begin with, then I completely understand why you consistently miss the point.

              However, the Scott McInnis of 1999 might disagree with you. To quote his Post op-ed from November of that year:

              With cancer, as with  so many things in life, time is of the essence.   While early  recognition and treatment are, in the short run, the best avenues  for minimizing the ill effects of cancer, I look forward to the  day when the will of the American people overwhelms this great  plague of our time.

              And trying to mitigate criticism by buying signs with his name on them to glorify the re-naming of a conservation area after himself is not the strongest indicator of the conservationist ethic.

              And if your starting premise is that it is beyond criticism for a federal campaign fund to be used to position someone for a state-level campaign, then what is left to discuss? Because I reviewed the recent spending reports, and that’s exactly what that PAC is for.

              Thanks for playing.  

      4. add to that, that many voters believe that politicians are sort of universally slimey and can’t be trusted with money and no one is going to care that he proved he cannot  be trusted with donor funds.  Especially in the R core.

        Or he can be trusted – to do what’s good for him.  He didn’t raise the money for charity and good works.  The people who wrote checks expected him to spend it on political stuff-he has and is.   So what he made some promises or hints that later turned out to be nothing but feel good words.

        Likewise, abusing a 527 or other pac.

        Nominate him- or the creationism guy – not a strong general showing from either.

        1. Wow,

          Was coming home at approx 4:30 and was flippin’ channels during a break on Mario’s show. Hit on cappi and craig interviewing the lobby king.

          jmatt’s parsed questions are soundin’ like scotty’s got good message control alright, but not as snippy, touchy, and combative as mclobby was today.

          Seriously, craig throws mclobby a softball at the very end of the interview about how the money never got to charity or a worthwhile nonprofit and simply used the word pledged in the question.

          Mclobby snaps and accuses craig of attempting to attack him.  cappi jumps in defending his lapdog, and mclobby bangs him. cappi, who usually has his nose a good 16 inches up any red party officionado’s ass, calls the former congressman goofy.

          Priceless exchange, espescially given cappi’s penchant for ass kissing all reds, any reds. Great radio.

          Next to mclobby, young crusader looks almost palatable. Almost that is. penry sounded just as goofy when they had him on later. Probably because the red loon base listens to and believes these clowns craig and cappi, and when the red base is listening, you better come a hatin’, slashin’, burnin’ and calling your “librul opponents” socialists. Ya better bring up the stimulus, and ya better tell those old folks that those ‘libruls” are gonna kill ’em.

  6. McInnis explained or covered earlier campaign expenses issues with the old “paid for it out of my own pocket”.  

    From the first of the year on, he has had consultants (doing his 527 work), employees (Mike Hess and Sean Duffy) polling, …  It is now time to come clean or this will become the albatross around the campaigns neck.        

  7. Penry really is a class act.  To not take the bait and use this (obvious) screw up against McInnis is pretty impressive.  It’s nice to see that he’s doing his part to keep the campaign focused on issues and not personal things.  

    Kudos, Josh.

      2. something about throwing a drowning man both ends of the rope. I forget how it goes, exactly. Usually it’s an indicator of stupidity. Not in this case – Penry’s hands are empty to all observers.  

    2. Like he’s not going to use it during the actual campaign? Give me a break.

      Penry has been laying personal attacks on McInnis since well before his announcement for Governor. IMO it’s been McInnis who’s been focused more on the issues.

      Anyway, it’s not like Penry even needs to attack McInnis on it. He’s got the Denver Post and Pols doing it for him.

  8. seems to be the leitmotif for McInnis and Penry.  Penry’s broken promise pledge and now McInnis, as Pols put it, it is, “if anything worse for him now that he’s reneged on his pledge.”  Two typical flimflam Republicans.  Their idee fixe with deception may provide an interesting clash when they both appear with Symphonie Fantastique campaign music.

    “When a rudderless Republican Party seems in danger of humiliating itself to death.” -Jeremy McCarter

  9. Here’s the Rocky Mountain News item from 6/2/2004:

    CONTROVERSIAL CHARITY

    Retiring Rep. Scott McInnis (R-03) plans to use part of his

    $1.3M campaign war chest to start his own charitable foundation

    — a rare but legal maneuver that watchdog groups have

    criticized in the past.” According to McInnis CoS Mike Hesse

    the foundation would work on issues McInnis focused on in

    Congress, including breast cancer research, education and

    conservation. The rest of the money would be available for

    political donations.

    FEC guidelines permit the transfer as long as the funds are

    not converted for personal use. It prohibits candidates from

    being paid from the groups they donate funds to, although that

    stipulation ends once the charity has spend the original amount

    donated. Despite this, “government watchdog groups have still

    expressed concerns… saying there was a ‘potential for abuse’

    because it is more difficult to track detailed finances of

    charitable groups (Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News, 6/2).

    4. Did he do what he said he would do? no, he didn’t. Since this doesn’t surprise anyone, what’s the issue? It’s only news when McInnis actually follows through on something. stop making up news, Denver Post! Nothing to see here!

      1. Honestly, I loathe sock puppetry, but Penry is winning in that department. If this is the best the McInnis blogosphere presence can provide, then I think he’d be better off doing absolutely nothing.

        1. is one of Scooter’s best things once he’s in office. But on press-the-flesh campaigning, he is unmatchable.

          Nobody can out-campaign him in person.

            1. You say that sarcastically, but Dick Lamm accomplished pretty much the same thing when he first ran, and in a much shorter campaign than McInnis has ahead of him. It’s not impossible.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

190 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!