Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 29, 2010, 07:43:51 PM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register

+  ALIPAC - American-Latino Immigrants Proudly Assisting the Community
|-+  MAIN
| |-+  Watching the Watchmen
| | |-+  ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?  (Read 894 times)
bob1388
Guest


Email
ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« on: August 10, 2008, 08:35:59 PM »

Under federal law, ALIPAC is required to make full disclosure of all contributions of over $200, but FEC has been alleging ALIPAC.US has not met the reporting requirements of federal election law.

Here's three recent letters ALIPAC.US wrote to the FEC refusing to fully comply with federal law requiring full disclosure of contributions over $200!

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00405878/339525/
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00405878/335901/
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00405878/334617/

So what happened to the 'rule of law' ALIPAC is always whining about when it comes to undocumented immigrants? Doesn't ALIPAC need to follow the 'rule of law' just like everyone else?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2008, 03:55:31 AM by tony_cheek » Logged
Reality
Full Member
***
Posts: 107



View Profile
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2008, 11:18:35 PM »

I've decided to leave ALIPAC alone. As long as Gheen's morons are donating to him, it keeps the money out of the hands of people who actually make a difference.
Contribute on ALICRAPers, break a new record.

Let them fumble around all they want, they make no difference in the big picture. I'd rather have them than a group that is actually competent.


Anyways, that doesn't mean we can't laugh at them.

I found a picture of Dixie.

http://www.daylife.com/photo/02AQfU71tH864


I have to say I'm a little surprised. I though she would be younger but she looks 58-62ish. Check out the sweater and shirt tucked into the the jeans. They fit perfectly with  the lanyard and of course the blow horn. This made my day.  My life isn't perfect but at least I'm not that.

enjoy
« Last Edit: August 10, 2008, 11:20:16 PM by Reality » Logged
tony_cheek
Founder
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2056



View Profile WWW
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2008, 08:35:52 AM »

Under federal law, ALIPAC is required to make full disclosure of all contributions of over $200, but FEC has been alleging ALIPAC.US has not met the reporting requirements of federal election law.

Here's three recent letters ALIPAC.US wrote to the FEC refusing to fully comply with federal law requiring full disclosure of contributions over $200!

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00405878/339525/
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00405878/335901/
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00405878/334617/

So what happened to the 'rule of law' ALIPAC is always whining about when it comes to undocumented immigrants? Doesn't ALIPAC need to follow the 'rule of law' just like everyone else?


To quote the first document:

Quote
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC
PO Box 30966, Raleigh, NC  27622
Identification Number:  C00405878

May 16, 2008

Laura E. Sinram
Senior Campaign Finance Analyst
Reports Analysis Division
Federal Elections Commission
Washington, DC  20463


Dear Laura E. Sinram,

This letter is in response to your request for information regarding the Year End Report (7/1/07-12/31/07).

As previously stated in our letter dated April 16, 2008:

"ALIPAC discloses yearly contributors that exceed $200, as required by law.

We make our "Best Effort' to obtain all required information.  We rarely have problems gathering the full name, address, city, state and zip of our contributors.

However, the Occupation and Name of Employer response rates are much lower, due to the documented attacks on employment, which many Americans that have spoken out on the issue of illegal immigration have suffered.  Many of our supporters work for federal and state governments and are in the healthcare, law enforcement and educational fields.  To have their occupation listed, may put their jobs at risk, due to the hostility and underhanded practices of our opposition.

It is our job to make a best effort, but donors have a right to refuse this request of information and many do.

ALIPAC raises funds through our website and by contacting prior donors.

Our website had a detailed Privacy Policy and a contributions page.

The contributions page is the first effort, to obtain the occupation and employer information, where the following is clearly stated. 

'Federal election law requires political committees to use best efforts to report the name, mailing address, occupation, and name of employer of individuals who contribute.  An individual may not contribute more than a total of $5,000 per year to the committee.  Federal law prohibits contributions to the committee from the general treasury funds of a corporation, labor organizations or national banks (including corporate or other business entity credit cards), or from any person contributing another's funds, from a Federal government contractor, or from a foreign national who lacks permanent resident status.  Contributions are not deductible for Federal income tax purposes.'

The contributor is then presented with fields of information to fill out.

The Occupation and Employer fields must contain some date or the form will not allow a donor to proceed.  This is a strong method on our part and has likely cost us many donations, as donors are apt to wrote 'None of your business; into those fields.

We make subsequent attempts to gather this information on all donors when we send them letters.  Each letter has a reply envelope, with our address preprinted on it and a reply card that contains the following required language.

'Federal law required us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year.'

Also, an existing donor of ALIPAC receives these letters twice per year.

We call those that give over $200 per year on the phone, if they did not provide the employer and occupation information.  Sometimes we reach them and they volunteer the information.  Sometimes we reach them and they decline to provide this information.  Sometimes we cannot reach them or do not hear back from them after leaving a message.

We feel that our dual request for occupation and employer information upon any first donation, insistence that some response be given upon donation, combined with our multiple yearly subsequent requests for the occupation and employer information, combined with attempts to gather the information by phone for out $200+ donors is quite extensive."

In addition to the above procedures, on or about April 16, 2008 we submitted an amendment to the Mid-Year Report (1/1/07-6/31/07), which included updated and additional information about donors.  Also, a regular review will be conducted of the donors that have contributed over $200 in a calendar year and the updated information will be submitted by amendment to the appropriate report or by listing the information in a Schedule A memo.

"Please let us know if you believe we need to engage in any additional efforts as we want to make sure we4 are in full compliance with the law."

In regards to the adequate identification of employer or occupation, I will contact the contributors and attempt to obtain adequate occupation and employer for each person that has contributed over $200 in the aggregate during the calendar year, that we do no currently have adequate information for.   The inadequately identified entries of "General Worker", "Self" and "None" are direct and quoted replies from our donors, in response to our enquiry and attempt to obtain the occupation and employer for each contribution.  If adequate information is obtained, it will be submitted in an amended report on Schedule A supporting Line 11 (a)(i).  If "Best Effort" is found to be a more appropriate response, that will be submitted instead.  In the future, I will contact your office about possible inadequate employer and occupation responses, prior to submitting a report.

In response to questions regarding Schedule B disclosure and expenditures "Mailing List Processing", "Movie/Theater Rental", "Office Equipment Monitory for Video", "Postage", "Press Release Distribution", "Press Release Service", "Printed Materials Advertisement", and "Theater Rental" were communications about our organization and issue stances and not for or against any federal candidate or expressed advocacy as defined under 11 CFR 100.22.

In response to questions regarding expenditures "Commercial Huckabee and ATM fee", "Phone Bank Services", "Voterlist Online".  We are certain that our efforts regarding Mike Huckabee do not qualify as expressed advocacy and after reviewing our communication materials and the FEC materials we have concluded these three expenditures were property reported on the Year End Report (7/41/07-12/31/07) Schedule B supporting Line 21 (b) and they are not independent expenditures.  We made communications that took issue with one of Mike Huckabee's immigration stances and did not advocate his election nor defeat.

Regarding our two donations to Ted Hayes in 2007.  These were made to Ted before he had filed or announced for federal office and before we had any knowledge that he would be running for congress in 2008.  Specifically, one donation was to cover his hotel room in Phoenix, AZ, where he was a guest speaker at an event that did not involve candidates or elections.  Our direct donation dated 9/27/07, in the amount of $500 was given to support his general activism on our issue and did not reflect nor relate to any communication for federal elections.

In response to disclosure of limited payments for administrative expenses.  As previously stated on April 15, 2008, "At ALIPAC, we are proud of the fact that our administrative operating expenses are so law.

This is due to three reasons.  1. Our organization is mostly operated by volunteers. 2. We are very frugal with our limited funds.  3. Our office is in cyberspace, inside of the website http://www.alipac.us where our officers and volunteers access the equivalents of office resources from home computers, wireless laptops, cyber cafes and public libraries.

While we realize our structure may be non-traditional, we are an activism PAC that selected the 527 corporation to facilitate our activism efforts and are in new territory with our operations.

All of our operating cost are reflected in line 21(b) of our reports.

We receive no support from any connected organizations.

We have incurred no debts.

All administrative expenses have been adequately disclosed and we will begin to clarify this via letter to your office at the beginning of each non-election year."  We understand that the letter submitted on April 15, 2008 would qualify as notification.

Regarding reported financial activity that was reflected on the wrong line of the Detailed Summary Page. As previously described, we have not contributed to or made an in-kind contribution to any federal candidates, during the Year End Reporting period.  Therefore, no financial activity was reported on Schedule B, supporting Line 23.


Sincerely,

Jane Patterson
Treasurer
Americans for Legal Immigration PAC



CC
William Gheen


Now, a couple of things "pop out" at me from this letter:

  • It's written by someone who didn't bother to proofread the letter. Ms. Patterson should take some night classes before she attempts to correspond with the federal government. Oh, and Patterson? Stop relying on your spell checker to catch your mistakes. It's embarrassing. I just remembered the letter was in .txt, not .pdf format, so it's possible some of the words may have been mis-read when the letter was sent through the OCR scanner. Why it was archived online in this manner is beyond me.
  • Since by law they have to account for Occupation and Employer Information, I would have thought they would have rejected donations from those unwilling to submit such information. Yes, the donors have a right to tell them "None of your damn business," but by the same token they should have flat out rejected the donation. Since those donations come in from a web site, it's not that hard to refuse money, especially coming from a credit card or PayPal.
  • Quote
    To have their occupation listed, may put their jobs at risk, due to the hostility and underhanded practices of our opposition.
    Now, how does that work? Oscar's job was threatened by some pukes, but nothing became of that, same thing with Bob and a few others I could name. The only way your job becomes jeopardized is someone notifies your boss that you are doing something that is against corporate policy or against the law. It sounds like Patterson knows there are quite a few government employees using government time and/or equipment to support a Political Action Committee, a gross violation of the Hatch Act.
Logged

Politicians are like diapers: they need changing, often, and for the same reason.
Cranial Proctology: Brain Farts and Other Delights
Reality
Full Member
***
Posts: 107



View Profile
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2008, 09:48:31 AM »

I don't want to drive ALIPAC out of business, they do more harm than good for their cause and frankly I'd rather overlook their fumbles than draw attention to them and possibly shut them down.

As for going after individuals alipcracers I may be persuaded. In her letter Dixie says they have the option of not divulging employers and occupations by law. Is that correct? We should find out if they are required to by law because I found at least one person who was not self employed who put down self employed.  Would they have to return the donation? It was fairly large.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2008, 02:26:14 PM by Reality » Logged
bob1388
Guest


Email
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2008, 01:11:07 PM »

I'm not looking to drive ALIPAC.US out of business either. They're entitled to their opinions, even as hateful and bigoted as they are.

What ALIPAC.US is not entitled to do is ignore the 'rule of law', especially while they insist that others obey the 'rule of law.'

As a former Republican party treasurer, I am fairly certain ALIPAC.US is required to obtain employer and profession information for contributions over $200. I don't have time to research just at the moment, but you should be able to find this at www.fec.gov.
Logged
tony_cheek
Founder
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2056



View Profile WWW
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2008, 01:24:06 PM »

The argument that their contributors will be subject to repercussions is BS. Unless you're doing something that's against company regulations or the Hatch Act, nobody cares. It's only when you use office time or materials (including the computer) for political ends do you get into trouble, especially government employees or government contractors.

Any donation made without the Occupation and Employer Information filled out should be immediately rejected, by hand if necessary.

Logged

Politicians are like diapers: they need changing, often, and for the same reason.
Cranial Proctology: Brain Farts and Other Delights
mongo
Guest


Email
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2008, 01:31:32 PM »

When will these people understand that illegal is illegal?
What part of "illegal" they don't understand?
Logged
bob1388
Guest


Email
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2008, 04:49:12 PM »

When will these people understand that illegal is illegal?
What part of "illegal" they don't understand?
Illegal is when people they don't want are doing something they don't like. Doesn't apply to them... Roll Eyes
Logged
tony_cheek
Founder
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2056



View Profile WWW
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #8 on: August 12, 2008, 02:31:19 AM »

When will these people understand that illegal is illegal?
What part of "illegal" they don't understand?

Oh, well played, sir!

<golf clap>

Logged

Politicians are like diapers: they need changing, often, and for the same reason.
Cranial Proctology: Brain Farts and Other Delights
bob1388
Guest


Email
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #9 on: August 12, 2008, 07:39:50 PM »

Yes, Mongo that was excellent. Alicrappers are a bunch of hypocrites. What part of the 'rule of law' (i.e. illegal) don't they understand?
Logged
bob1388
Guest


Email
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #10 on: August 12, 2008, 08:05:09 PM »

Still more evidence that ALIPAC.US does not respect the 'rule of law':
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_27039510830+0
The FEC apparently was considering a big civil fine for late filing.

When will these people understand that illegal is illegal?
What part of “illegal” don’t they understand?
Logged
bob1388
Guest


Email
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #11 on: August 16, 2008, 02:23:48 PM »

ALIPAC.US is continuing to defy the rule of law.

According to this letter from ALIPAC.US's treasurer to the FEC, over 50 donors of more than $200 were sent letters requesting the information required by federal law, but less than 10 responded with the missing information.
Quote
In an effort to reflect the willingness to be in compliance with FEC regulations, by disclosing the identification of all individuals that contribute over $200 in a calendar year, I reviewed the records for all donors dating back through 2006.  My research revealed that there was not a single instance of a missing name, or address for the reported donor information.  There is one inadequate donor name in our records so I sent a stand alone request to that donor asking for the required information on August 12, 2008.

Since ALIPAC changed treasurers in 2007, I sent all donors with "best effort" recorded for their employers and/or occupation, a second stand alone request on or about August 6, 2008, which exceeds FEC "best effort" compliance requirements.  This additional request complied to FEC regulations because it included a brief thank you note, the quote "Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year" and a request for the employer and/or occupation information was made, without any form of solicitation.  Over 50 donors were sent a second stand alone request, however, less than 10 have responded with employer and or occupation information to date.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00405878/356874/


It's time for ALIPAC.US to follow the 'rule of law' and return the contributions of the remaining 40 who are defying federal law.

When will these people understand that illegal is illegal?
What part of "illegal" they don't understand?
« Last Edit: August 16, 2008, 02:47:43 PM by The Watchman » Logged
IBMMuseum
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631



View Profile
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #12 on: August 16, 2008, 06:11:59 PM »

ALIPAC.US is continuing to defy the rule of law.

According to this letter from ALIPAC.US's treasurer to the FEC, over 50 donors of more than $200 were sent letters requesting the information required by federal law, but less than 10 responded with the missing information.
Quote
...There is one inadequate donor name in our records so I sent a stand alone request to that donor asking for the required information on August 12, 2008.

Since ALIPAC changed treasurers in 2007, I sent all donors with "best effort" recorded for their employers and/or occupation, a second stand alone request on or about August 6, 2008, which exceeds FEC "best effort" compliance requirements.  This additional request complied to FEC regulations because it included a brief thank you note, the quote "Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year" and a request for the employer and/or occupation information was made, without any form of solicitation.  Over 50 donors were sent a second stand alone request, however, less than 10 have responded with employer and or occupation information to date.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00405878/356874/


It's time for ALIPAC.US to follow the 'rule of law' and return the contributions of the remaining 40 who are defying federal law.

When will these people understand that illegal is illegal?
What part of "illegal" they don't understand?


Despite Willy's protests that we are reacting to Brand X, there seems to be only action there once information is brought up here. Brand X can't "exceed" best effort compliance when they didn't supply the donor data in the first place, and has such hit-n-miss second responses from donors when they had to prompt them again to pass along the data to the FEC. In fact it almost seems like a lot of winking is going on when Brand X tells a donor if they don't provide the information for the FEC then at least Brand X did the most it could by asking nicely.

The Brand X Treasurer changed in 2007 (how many months back was that to be a legit excuse?), but Willy should have known his PAC has to comply with the FEC in that manner...

Alicrappers that contribute $200 or more in a calendar year without providing their information to Brand X are putting Willy's butt in a sling to comply with FEC regulations...

A PAC that doesn't play by the rules needs to be disbanded...
Logged
tony_cheek
Founder
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2056



View Profile WWW
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2008, 08:56:12 PM »

These goobers are having a hell of a time with their software, aren't they? Either they're complete idiots or they're "shining"  the FEC.

And I think they've gotten a hell of a lot of mileage out of that "best effort" crap.

"Best Effort" would be an anonymous donor sending cash in the mail. "Best Effort" would be a cashier's check.

People making donations through a web site cannot - I repeat - cannot make anonymous donations: if the donor does not wish to give his/her employer/employment information, then the donation is null and the transaction credited to te donor's account.

"Best Effort" my ass.

Especially when Gheen says

Quote
We chose a PAC structure because we can maintain our donor privacy,

Which tells me they're thumbing their collective noses at the FEC.

I think it's time to make another complaint to the FEC.

Logged

Politicians are like diapers: they need changing, often, and for the same reason.
Cranial Proctology: Brain Farts and Other Delights
bob1388
Guest


Email
Re: ALIPAC.US Defies the 'Rule of Law'?
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2008, 07:25:03 AM »

Quote
We chose a PAC structure because we can maintain our donor privacy,
Other times Willie has claimed to have chosen a PAC organization so everything is public and above board.

So which is it? Open or closed? I don't think he has a choice as Federal law requires political action committees to submit detailed financial reports, including every disbursement and every contribution of over $200. That's the 'rule of law' Willie is so fond of quoting when it comes to immigration.

These laws were passed to reduce the influence of money over elections and to make the process more transparent. Sorry Willie, but the 'rule of law' will prevail here. Better get those financial reports amended to include the complete donor information, or return the unlawful contributions.

When will these people understand that illegal is illegal?
What part of "illegal" don't they understand?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC

Design:DigitalEye