IS IT TRUE? January 24, 2011

1. Is it true that the CCO should examine and post the campaign filings of ALL our elected officials, not just the one they oppose?…that not doing so smacks of partisanship?…that perhaps the CCO should change their name from City-County Observer to Weinzapfel Observer?

   • Two others were posted in a different article. The other 18 will be examined today and if there is anything that draws interest we have every intention to post them. Some are only a page or two. The Mayors disclosure has more pages, more contributions, and more expenses reported than all of the other candidates for office combined. Thus there is more interest.

     • Editor:

       I hate to say it, but the dollars involved so far appear to be chump change. Barely enough to pay one of the “absentee voting specialists” to work the 4th ward…

       If there is higher level money laundering going on, it will probably not be via the contributions to other candidate–that is just too public and verifiable and risky. Instead, it would be in the form of inflated expenses and payments to vendors.

       To investigate that would require the resources of, say, a local newspaper or television station that actually cared about corruption.

       You would have to get the receipts and compare them to the actual expenses. Even that might not be enough, if the vendors themselves were involved in the scheme. One would expect the receipts themselves to be inflated, so as to match the expenses on the reports. The only way to detect fraud in that situation is to investigate the *vendors,* and compare what they billed to Weinzapfel with what they billed to other candidates for the same services…And even if THAT were the case, Weinzapfel would have plausible deniability. After all, how can a candidate know if he or she is being “overcharged” by a vendor…

       Point being, fraud is pretty easy to commit and cover-up if you are sufficiently motivated. The only hope you ever have of catching these bastards is if they get arrogant and lazy.

       • @editor: are you saying that vendors charge different rates to different candidates for say advertising services? Does the City County Observer do that? Charge different rates to different candidates for the same ad space and run times?

         • We have a standard rate sheet. There is no run time factor in rates, they sequentially rotate 24/7. The top banners, bottom banners, and side ads are all different prices.

         • I think you meant to direct that question to me.

           I’m not saying that it DOES happen, merely that it CAN happen.

         • Yes, you are correct. My apologies to the editor.

2. A mountain of cash and only chicken feed contributions to the local Demos. Only $500 to Mr. Tornatta. CCO, anything to Brad Ellsworth?

   • Apparently nothing to Ellsworth and nothing from Ellsworth.

   • This totally misses the point of what Weinzapfel is. He and his supporters couldn’t care less about Evansville, except insofar as it advances his larger ambitions.

     Spending money on local hacks like Tornatta would be considered a “waste” of the investment that his Indianapolis backers are making in him.

3. So that comes to about $12,000 in expenses. As I said, if those expenses appear as corresponding contributions in the various candidates’ own filings, then they are either legitimate or Weinzapfel has covered his trail extremely well. Either way, the story goes nowhere.

   On the other hand, if there are discrepancies, then even the mainstream media will have to start asking “why?”

   $12,000 may not be a huge sum of money, but it buys a lot of absentee votes in municipal elections…

4. Is it possible, we’ll find those amounts conveniently reflect the amounts of expensive wine consumed at special occasions?

   Is it possible, we’ll find those amounts reflect high level EVSC, favors?

   • Surely, the Weinzapfel campaign report posting had nothing to do with other news of the day…
     (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/nyregion/21mob.html)

     I’m sure it’s just ironic timing?

     😉

     • Okay, now you’ve given three totally unrelated examples of what exactly? Can you provide linkage between these three “events” or news items? If not, your premise (whatever you intend it to be) is totally vacant.

       • I asked three questions.

         Linkage? Well, conclusions generally depend on the set of facts you choose to mention, or ignore.

         Right? (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/jan/09/out-on-a-high-note/)

         • No, conclusions should reflect fact, be substantiated, especially when making accusations of criminality or ethics violations.

         • Fact: When Christmas parties with enormous amounts of booze, on the public dime, are made public…
           Question: Significant, “Cardmember Services” campaign expenditures are beyond reproach?

           Fact: When the EVSC appoints the wife of a sitting Mayor…
           Question: Have not they opened the floor for questions of political motivations?

           Fact: When COIT is pledged for big ticket, stadium funding, despite campaign promises…
           Question: Don’t overall ethical motivations become a real question mark?

           Fact: When a candidate announced mayoral intentions, and his party responds with union threats…
           Question: Can you figure out the rest?

         • Sorry, I still don’t see a connection between the Weinszapfel campaign finance report and EVCB’s dinner at Biaggi’s. No direct correlation between the names listed in this article and the attendees of the party.

           And I don’t see any correlation between the campaign report and EVSC business either.

           I certainly see no correlation between the mayor’s campaign finance report and the mafia bust in NYC/Jersey, and one local union official’s off the cuff remarks does not constitute threats from the local Democrat party, or a scandal of any sort.

           Personally, I think your attempts to try and make some cockeyed connection are a bit hysterical.

         • Soon2b,

           You don’t even read what I say, do you?

           Fact: We have alleged GAGE employee theft…
           Fact: We have alleged trustee theft…
           Fact: We have alleged political firings…
           Fact: We have off the cuff statements by union leaders, that the editor of the Courier labeled a “threat”… (http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/oct/10/davis-weinzapfel-enter-fray/)

           All events I wouldn’t have thought “possible”…

           The Mayoral campaign report was filed in the news on 1/20, so was the announcement of the mob bust. Like I said, I’m sure it was an ironic, coincidence! (but you can’t deny the publish dates match!)
           😉

5. One more note, watch out for “amended filings” from some of these candidates to account for the cash they allegedly received. Amended filings should always show up separately and again are easy to track, barring corruption at the County Clerk’s office…

   Imo, it would be a mistake for any of these candidates to try to file an amended report. If there is one universal axiom in politics it is this: “the coverup is worse than the crime.”

   This paragraph of this Comment was removed by the editor
   

   Is it worth the potential damage to your reputations, careers, and lives to perpetuate this small man’s ego trip?

   • You know, that’s some pretty strong, yet unsubstantiated language there: “Three words removed by editor …” Besides, what’s with beating a dead dog, or in this case a lame duck? Isn’t it time to move along?

     Looking at that list of candidates and donation amounts, what jumps out at me is that each one of those Democrats donated a significant amount of money (“assessments”) and personal time to the local Democrat party, and it just seems fitting and gracious for Weinszapfel (who held several of his own fundraisers during a county election cycle) to share a bit of his annual collections with the county candidatess.

     Sometimes y’all need to look past your obsession with this guy, and simply OBSERVE the obvious.

6. I was stuck in very heavey traffic headed south on Green River at Morgan Avenue and saw the new, really slick Lloyd Winnecke electronic billboard message cycle about 3 times before I made it thru the intersection Saturday afternoon. I wonder how many cars per day pass thru that intersection, especially when it takes a couple of signal cycles to make it thru.

7. Ok, so far I’ve reviewed Goebel’s and Avery’s online filings with the Indiana Sec. of State.

   Goebel’s checks out–there is indeed a total of $3,000 in contributions from Weinzapfel.

   Avery’s, on the other hand, does not. There is no record of any contributions from Weinzapfel in her filings, at least that I’ve been able to find.

   Weinzapfel claimed $1,000 in contributions to her.

   That’s one the media might want to inquie into…

8. Stilwell checks out.

   Riecken shows only $500 in contributions from Weinzapfel despite the corresponding claim from Weinzapfel of $1000.

9. Deig also shows only $500 in contributions despite the claim of $1000 on Weinzapfel’s side.

   Someone with more time and access needs to look into this, since I can only access the publicly available filings on the Ind. Sec. of State website. I don’t believe the local candidate filings are online anywhere since the County Clerk’s office appears to have an Amish aversion to modern technology.

10. No Weinzapfel contributions showing up on Steve Smith’s filing, either.

    Weinzapfel claimed $500 went there.

11. Very, very interesting as there appears to be an even $500 discrepancy on many of the other candidate filings. This will likely be rectified as is their practice:

    http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/jun/04/bond-bank-rectifies-oversight-barnetts-pay/

12. Wow, outside_observer is on the case.

    Nice job.

    • Somebody really needs to get in to the County Clerk’s office before Mark Owen sends one of his goons over there to alter the local candidate reports. The security and chain of possession controls on documents in that office is…lacking.

      That being said, the local money is almost irrelevant given the discrepancies that *appear* to be present in the state candidate filings. The State of Indiana takes campaign finance fraud much more seriously than Vanderburgh County ever has.

      Assuming these online filings are accurate, then the matter needs to be referred to the Sec. of State and Attorney General for review.

      • With regard to the state candidate filings, are they filed as of the end of the year or as of the filing period that ended on 10/8/2010? If the filing dates are not the same as the filing date of the Weinzapfel for Mayor Committee some of the discrepancies may be accounted for when the final reports are published. Please check on the dates.

        • Depends on a few factors:

          1) Size of the contribution,
          2) When the contribution was made

          There are defined reports that must be filed by a certain date–October 8, for example.

          However if contributions above a certain threshold come in AFTER that date, then the candidate must file a supplemental report–that’s why you see the supplemental reports from all of the State Rep. candidates disclosing big ad buys, in-kind donations, etc. in the final weeks of the campaign.

          Small contributions can effectively be hidden until after the campaign is over. The candidates are supposed to file a year-end report by sometime in January or February, I believe. Smaller contributions would show up in this report.

          Does Weinzapfel’s report show when the contributions were made? That would be helpful to know.

          • Yes it does show and there are several donations that were made after the most recent posted date on the state website. In particular a quick scan shows that on 10/12 just after the 10/8 reporting period closed Stilwell got $1,000, Deig got $500, Goebel got $2,500, and Riecken got $500. On 10/28 Avery was given $500. Those numbers look quite close to the differences that you pointed out earlier. When will the final reports for the rest of the state candidates become available?

13. Excellent victory by the Aces. Wasn’t it # 600 at Roberts?

14. Editor:

    From the Indiana Campaign Finance Website, it appears that *only* contributions in excess of $1,000 must be disclosed on the Supplemental Report (CFA-11).

    If Weinzapfel for Mayor contributed less than $1,000 to any of the statewide candidates AFTER 10/15, then those contributions will not show up until the YEAR END report.

    For some reason, none of the annual reports are showing on the Sec.State website. In past years, those reports were due on the 20th, which was last Thursday. It is probably just an administrative delay.

    So to sum it up, unless there was a contribution of more than $1,000 that came in AFTER 10/15, everything appears to be kosher.

    On the other hand, if the $500 contributions DO NOT show up in the Annual Reports (whenever they are posted), then there is an issue.

    Wait for the Annual reports. My guess is that they will all be “in order.” At that point, the only thing you will have to go on is the word of the local(?) candidates who called you to say that they never received the contributions that were reported.

    It is a little odd that Weinzapfel for Mayor would be sitting on a mound of cash going into the final week of a HIGHLY competitive election cycle and then would simply release $500 a pop to candidates like Reicken, Deig, and Avery. But there are many possible explanation for that, including the possiblity that Weinzapfel knew those candidates would lose and didn’t want to waste his money on them.

    • We had someone in the Clerk’s office today. Results will be out either later today or tomorrow. I agree with you that the places where reports disagree will be for relatively small sums of money. I understand that there are four areas of disagreement so far and that none are of the so called “large” amounts.

15. So, then we will know whether all this print was a tempest in a teapot or a fart in a fury?

Comments are closed.