Greg Kline has a very informational podcast updating us on the activities of everyone's favorite rogue political group, the "Citizens for Better Government" Slate. I am going to provide some back story, and reproduce some of his podcast and links for easy navigation.
The Annapolis Republican Central Committee, of which I was formerly treasurer, was pitched in October by Doug Burkhardt to commit to a table at a fundraiser being held by a Political Action Committee (PAC) that had recently been formed. The officers of the PAC were Burkhardt: treasurer, and Lawrence Scott: chairman. Three republican state delegates: Nic Kipke, Steve Schuh, and James King, were on board with informal roles, as elected officials could not have formal roles in a PAC. At this October meeting, Mr. Burkhardt attested to having 25 donors at $5,000 each. As Greg reports in his podcast, this claim was repeated publicly on several occasions.
In November, Delegates King and Schuh took the show to the Wednesday Republican Breakfast club, defending their decisions and their stake in the organization. However, many audience members had experienced first hand negative experiences with Scott and Burkhardt, and vehemently expressed their opposition. That sentiment was widespread, and in response the group was changed from a PAC to a 'slate', allowing the delegates to (reportedly) have more control of how the money is dispersed.
This brings us to today (actually last week), when the campaign finance report for the group was released. Uh-oh. Lies, all lies! Despite claims from the group of $125,00--even $200,000-- in donations, the total amount was only $67,322. That amount includes $5000 apiece from Delegates King and Schuh, but nothing from Delegate Kipke. What's worse is the disbursements. The slate disbursed only 1 check, for $15,000, to Lawrence Scott's consulting business, covering "event location expenses and printing materials".
Greg's podcast is provides very poignant analysis. The worst fears of republican activists were realized: that large sums of money are being controlled by, and funneled through, Lawrence Scott. The slate's main fundraiser, which took place two days before finance reports were due, featured President Reagan's son Michael as the guest speaker. Yet, no entry was made for Mr. Reagan's fee, which is probably in the $15,000-$20,000 range. Greg predicts that next year's report will show a check for this fee, with a posting date just after this year's reporting, so the slate wouldn't have to disclose their true cash on hand, which Greg estimates to be in the low $30,000 range--a far cry from the bill of goods that was sold to many people over the past months. With such financial shortfalls, why would Delegate Kipke be exempted from ponying up his $5K? Perhaps in exchange for his role of spokesman, and the duty of misleading the public as to the group's status.
I'm certainly glad I didn't give them any money.
Showing posts with label nic kipke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nic kipke. Show all posts
Friday, January 25, 2008
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Delegates Schuh & King Defend Special Session Votes & Citizens For Better Government PAC
Scheduled to speak at the Wednesday Morning Republican Breakfast Club today were Delegates Nic Kipke, Steve Schuh, and James King. Delegates Schuh and King showed up, and they might be wishing they hadn't.
The first topic of discussion was the special session. The delegates gave a brief summary of their perception of the session and its consequences, but then both decided to bring up their controversial votes in anticipation of having to defend their positions.
Schuh talked about his vote in favor of the $500 million (multi-hundreds of millions, anyway) expansion of medicaid. (I didn't know this, and now that the session is over it is a bit harder to find out. The general session took down its special session page, and neither myself nor The Main Adversary could figure out where to look. I think it's HB-6.) Schuh remarked that people making $20,000 for a family of 4 need to be in the public system, because there is no way the private market can make health insurance cheap enough for such a family to afford.
But there was no time to debate this! The meeting was only for an hour, and there were more pressing issues. Delegate King explained his vote on slots, elaborating that he made his support of a slots referendum known from day 1. He claims that over 80% of Marylanders support having a voice on the matter, and that giving them that voice was the right thing to do, even if the difficult thing. I will quote him as accurately as I remember:
The highly up-to-speed audience jumped on him immediately for this. Regardless of one's position on slots, they argued, having such narrowly focused language in the state constitution was inappropriate. Marriage is fundamental enough to appear in the constitution, but gambling is not. So went the argument.
There simply was not enough time for me to ask the question about leverage, which has been posed before. With the actual budget to come in 2 months, Republicans will be hard pressed to exert any negotiating force since the caucus could not unify for some major votes in the special session.
An even better dialogue surrounded the next topic, the Citizens For Better Government PAC. Delegates King, Schuh, and Kipke have joined the PAC's efforts to raise money for promising Republican candidates and contested Republican incumbents. While the intentions of the delegates may be noble, the officers of the PAC are not.
The chairman of the PAC is Lawrence Scott, and the treasurer is Doug Burkhardt. Mention these names to local Republican activists, and you will elicit the ire of a sleeping giant being awoken. Burkhardt worked against certain Republican candidates as a member of a central committee; Scott from most accounts is morally bankrupt; and both have worked against other PAC's in the past.
The Citizens For Better Government PAC is not even registered as a Republican entity, which makes the delegates' involvement all the more questionable, and risky for them. Delegate King remained steadfast, however, stating that such was merely an oversight and "this is obviously a Republican PAC". When asked who will make the decisions of where the money goes, they responded "we will". So they think. With Scott as chairman and Burkhardt as treasurer, the PAC can disperse money freely without the consent of the delegates; the delegates indeed cannot be named officers of the PAC because it would constitute a 'slate' and the money could only go to the slate's candidates. Although they certainly cannot be naive to this process or to Lawrence Scott (he is an advisor to Schuh), Schuh and King seemed surprised at the group's insistence that their fundraising abilities are being used to establish a slush fund for a campaign consultant.
The PAC has big goals--they claim to have $15,000-$20,000 in the bank and to have commitments for another $125,000. Delegate Schuh hopes to raise $400,000 to spend on the next election. The concern of Republicans should be the people in charge of the money. After all, why not use the Maryland GOP?
The first topic of discussion was the special session. The delegates gave a brief summary of their perception of the session and its consequences, but then both decided to bring up their controversial votes in anticipation of having to defend their positions.
Schuh talked about his vote in favor of the $500 million (multi-hundreds of millions, anyway) expansion of medicaid. (I didn't know this, and now that the session is over it is a bit harder to find out. The general session took down its special session page, and neither myself nor The Main Adversary could figure out where to look. I think it's HB-6.) Schuh remarked that people making $20,000 for a family of 4 need to be in the public system, because there is no way the private market can make health insurance cheap enough for such a family to afford.
But there was no time to debate this! The meeting was only for an hour, and there were more pressing issues. Delegate King explained his vote on slots, elaborating that he made his support of a slots referendum known from day 1. He claims that over 80% of Marylanders support having a voice on the matter, and that giving them that voice was the right thing to do, even if the difficult thing. I will quote him as accurately as I remember:
Sometimes the legislature comes to an impasse on an issue, and can't figure out
what to do. When this happens, the public gets fed up, and demands a say
on the matter. Republicans supported a constitutional amendment 3 years
ago for defining marriage, and I think we need consistency of practices,
otherwise we are no better than them (Democrats).
The highly up-to-speed audience jumped on him immediately for this. Regardless of one's position on slots, they argued, having such narrowly focused language in the state constitution was inappropriate. Marriage is fundamental enough to appear in the constitution, but gambling is not. So went the argument.
There simply was not enough time for me to ask the question about leverage, which has been posed before. With the actual budget to come in 2 months, Republicans will be hard pressed to exert any negotiating force since the caucus could not unify for some major votes in the special session.
An even better dialogue surrounded the next topic, the Citizens For Better Government PAC. Delegates King, Schuh, and Kipke have joined the PAC's efforts to raise money for promising Republican candidates and contested Republican incumbents. While the intentions of the delegates may be noble, the officers of the PAC are not.
The chairman of the PAC is Lawrence Scott, and the treasurer is Doug Burkhardt. Mention these names to local Republican activists, and you will elicit the ire of a sleeping giant being awoken. Burkhardt worked against certain Republican candidates as a member of a central committee; Scott from most accounts is morally bankrupt; and both have worked against other PAC's in the past.
The Citizens For Better Government PAC is not even registered as a Republican entity, which makes the delegates' involvement all the more questionable, and risky for them. Delegate King remained steadfast, however, stating that such was merely an oversight and "this is obviously a Republican PAC". When asked who will make the decisions of where the money goes, they responded "we will". So they think. With Scott as chairman and Burkhardt as treasurer, the PAC can disperse money freely without the consent of the delegates; the delegates indeed cannot be named officers of the PAC because it would constitute a 'slate' and the money could only go to the slate's candidates. Although they certainly cannot be naive to this process or to Lawrence Scott (he is an advisor to Schuh), Schuh and King seemed surprised at the group's insistence that their fundraising abilities are being used to establish a slush fund for a campaign consultant.
The PAC has big goals--they claim to have $15,000-$20,000 in the bank and to have commitments for another $125,000. Delegate Schuh hopes to raise $400,000 to spend on the next election. The concern of Republicans should be the people in charge of the money. After all, why not use the Maryland GOP?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)