UPDATE: the liberal activist group Progress Now just filed a complaint with the Justice Department asking for an investigation of false statements (the bogus name and address for the donation in question) and making knowingly illegal campaign contributions. From the complaint:
I urge that you immediately exercise your authority under federal law to investigate whether Bob Schaffer and/or his agent/campaign manager and an unknown person posing as “Steve Mason” violated and/or conspired to violate 2 U.S.C. § 441j and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by causing false statements to be made to the Federal Election Commission regarding the true source of two contributions made to the Mark Udall for Senate Campaign.(Rocky Mountain News 10/31/2008; Denver Post, 10/31/2008)
A person makes a false statement to under federal law if he knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry. See 18 U.S.C. § 1001. A person making a false statement shall be fined under or imprisoned not more than 5 years. Id.
Federal law also prohibits persons from making a campaign contribution in the name of another person. 2 U.S.C. 441f.
Full text follows.
—
Note to those of you who aren’t stupid: if you think you have something that might embarrass your political opponent, don’t try to prove it by doing something that breaks federal law. Of course if you’re not stupid, you probably already know not to do that. Or maybe you are just a little stupid, especially when you’re desperate at the end of a losing campaign, but at least you watched Bob Beauprez’s campaign break federal law in 2006 for the exact same purpose of embarrassing his opponent, with disastrous results and you know not to go down the same road. Either way, it’s an obvious point that not-stupid political operatives everywhere should get without any coaching.
Bob Schaffer’s train wreck of a campaign, however, as the Rocky Mountain News reports…
A Bob Schaffer supporter donated to Mark Udall’s Senate campaign under a false name this week, wanting to test the Schaffer campaign’s assertion that Udall is accepting untraceable donations.
Now the action has erupted into a firestorm in which both campaigns are accusing the other of fraud.
Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams said that because Udall accepts money from sources such as prepaid credit cards that allow users to be anonymous, he can skirt campaign-finance limits and laws.
Udall staffers said in response that while their Web site that takes such donations complies with federal law, the Schaffer campaign broke the law by encouraging someone to provide false information while making a donation.
“The only campaign that has done anything wrong here is Bob Schaffer’s campaign,” Udall press secretary Tara Trujillo said…
Wednesday’s Washington Post featured a story about Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama accepting donations from prepaid credit cards that can mask the giver’s identity. Such cards are purchased at stores and can be used as cash without the card being linked to the spender.
Wadhams said that after he’d gotten a tip that Udall, a Democrat, allowed the same practice, a Schaffer supporter made two $1 donations under the name of Steve Mason and included a fake address [Pols emphasis] without questioning from Udall’s Web site. The unnamed supporter tried the same thing with Schaffer’s site but was prohibited from doing so, Wadhams said…
Trujillo responded by noting that there is nothing illegal about the practice and that Udall’s Web site requires donors to confirm they are not breaking any federal law.
Which is what the Washington Post said about the Obama contribution system. It may not be the most secure system (like anything really is) but it doesn’t break the law. And if it doesn’t break the law, but a Schaffer crony at the obvious behest of the campaign did break the law by knowingly providing false information…just for some simpering last-minute “gotcha” of no real value…
Wow. We could, after a little work, come up with a more comically self-destructive stunt to pull. But it would take some work.
And as for Wadhams, rarely has there ever been a more comically tragic descent as quickly as he has seen. He thought he’d be in the final days of a Presidential campaign now, with George Allen at the top of the GOP ticket, but instead he’s throwing half-baked Hail Marys that make him, and his no-chance-in-hell-of-winning Senate candidate, look ridiculous.
October 31, 2008
William M Welch II
Chief, Public Integrity Section
United States Department of Justice
1400 New York Avenue NW, 12th Floor
Washington D.C. 20005Fax: 202-514-3003
Mr. Welch:
I urge that you immediately exercise your authority under federal law to investigate whether Bob Schaffer and/or his agent/campaign manager and an unknown person posing as “Steve Mason” violated and/or conspired to violate 2 U.S.C. § 441j and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by causing false statements to be made to the Federal Election Commission regarding the true source of two contributions made to the Mark Udall for Senate Campaign.(Rocky Mountain News 10/31/2008; Denver Post, 10/31/2008)
A person makes a false statement to under federal law if he knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry. See 18 U.S.C. § 1001. A person making a false statement shall be fined under or imprisoned not more than 5 years. Id.
Federal law also prohibits persons from making a campaign contribution in the name of another person. 2 U.S.C. 441f.
Bob Schaffer, a candidate for United States Senate in Colorado, campaign told the Rocky Mountain News that a Schaffer supporter used the name “Steve Mason” to make two contributions to the campaign of Schaffer’s opponent, Mark Udall, using a fictitious address. (Rocky Mountain News, 10/31/08). When Bob Schaffer’s campaign and “Steve Mason” agreed to make this contribution under false pretenses, they knew that their actions would cause false information to be filed with the Federal Election Commission.
I respectfully urge you to launch an immediate investigate Bob Schaffer and/or his campaign manager and “Steve Mason” to determine whether they violated federal law by causing a false statement to be made to a federal agency.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Huttner
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Phoenix Rising
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: coloradosane
IN: State House Candidate Claims To Know “Women’s Studies” Creepily Well
BY: coloradosane
IN: Trump’s Insane Slam On The Medal Of Honor Leaves Pueblo Asking WTF
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: State House Candidate Claims To Know “Women’s Studies” Creepily Well
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: New Financial Woes Add to Colorado Republican Party’s Long List of Problems
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: The RFK Jr. Diversion Didn’t Work And Is Almost Over
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Boebert’s Bestie George Santos Headed To Prison
BY: DavidThi808
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
I didn’t even know you could figure out which cards were pre-paid and which weren’t. Shows what I know.
If Republicans weren’t griping about Democrats accepting pre-paid cards, they’d be promoting the idea that Democrats were profiting from identity thieves or something else. The whole party needs a WAAAMBULANCE. Oh – and a sense of ethics.
The Rocky’s lone source for this bit of wisdom is a paid Schaffer staffer.
I’ve run a business and taken credit cards for years. My card processor does not ask for a ZIP code, and it makes no distinction between credit, debit, prepaid or otherwise.
My own credit processor can take ZIP codes – in fact it helps lower my fees to do so – but I don’t get any indication about credit vs. debit vs. prepaid.
is a 1-point discount for having the card present versus entering the number manually.
In my case, having the CVS number and a piece of the person’s address (street number and/or ZIP code) allows me the discount. They consider that as “having the card present”. Since you aren’t allowed to write down the CVS, they assume either the card is in front of you or the person is on the phone with you. Either works.
I know because I gave $10.00 when I was at the CD-1 Convention and Assembly. And I could have written down any name I wanted on the list of donors. Any name! I bet that’s where Obama got his millions, George Soros is sneaking around giving at live events in tens and twenties. Yeah, yeah, that explains it. <eye roll>
Wadhams is done. Maybe he can find a student council campaign to run.
What is the difference between somebody donating $20 with a prepaid card and somebody stuffing a $20 bill into a donation envelope and putting whatever they want on the donor info portion?
Maybe I’m too close, but this seems like an awfully silly argument.
they start inventing reasons why they’re behind. It’s called “denial”.
Like Ted Stevens saying: “I have not been convicted of anything”. R’s like Stevens and Wadhams seem to be hell bent on destroying what little is left of Republican credibility in America. And with McInnis, Owens, Beauprez and Schaffer shooting across the circle, it will only get worse the next couple of years.
As Craig from South Park put it:
“Was there ever a moment, when you guys first came up with the genius plan to become a
Peruvian flute band, ‘credit card criminals’ that any of you said “Hey, you know? This plan might backfire.” … No. That never occurred to you. Because you guys are jerks. You never learn from your mistakes. And that’s why everyone at school thinks you’re assholes.”God it just encapsulates everything I have been thinking about the Republicans for a long time now. I said something similar just after the 2006 elections to some of the regular shills here, though not quoting South Park. Obvious from the way they reacted to me then, as well as the Republican Party’s subsequent actions, that they never really listened.
The hubris I have seen out of them is just absolutely unbelievable. It makes whatever good Republicans out there look bad. As much as I like the idea of being on the winning side (it’s not over yet), it is despicably pathetic what they will stoop to and what everybody, who isn’t in the tank for some or all of them, just finds so despicable. Where does this end?
The sad thing is, that I have had discussions with self-identified conservatives and when one drops the partisan bickering, it seems like they and I want close to the same things and I have even been told by one that he was surprised that we really aren’t that far apart. For once, I just wish everyone would open their eyes. But if McCain of 2008, Palin, Wadhams, Schaffer, Bush, Rove, et. al. have their way, that will never happen.
The donor committed a federal crime. Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, 2 U.S.C. 441f, it is criminal to knowingly make a campaign contribution in the name of another.
Likewise, receipt of funds in the name of another must be taken with a knowing falsity. Udall did not commit a crime.
If I were the donor, I would note the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act included enhanced criminal penalties for FECA crimes making a violation of 441f punishable as a felony – subject to 2 years of imprisonment and mandatory minimum fines (see 2 U.S.C. 437g(d)(1)(A)(i).
It’s time for the DOJ to investigate this donor and also whether a conspiracy to commit a crime exists
For a someone who occupied a pedestal of sorts within the GOP, he sure has shattered into a million pieces. The curtain has finally been pulled back to reveal an empty suit with nothing but a very big mouth. It’s amateur hour over at Schaffer HQ, and now you can stick a fork in Wadhams–he’s done.
Wadhams should have had someone cook a whole bunch of meth, sell it, and donate the proceeds to the Udall campaign. Then he could have pointed out that the Udall campaign was financed by drug money. It is not that Wadhams is an idiot, he just doesn’t think big enough.
that Wadhams hasn’t done this?
Kind of along the lines of the Big Lebowski.
Trick or treat, Dick?
I’d love to hear the back story about that.
Is it the hockey player, the “Borat” bit player, or the professional luthier?