Our First Muckraker’s Challenge: Follow The Money!

Hey there, Jimmy Olsen: Here’s your chance to play investigative reporter!

Welcome to the very first ScrambleWatch Muckraker’s Challenge: Just yesterday, candidates for state and local office, as well as the backers of ballot initiatives, filed their campaign finance reports.

We’re challenging you to comb through the numbers and dig up some dirt. Post your exposé in the comments section below.

The best entries get four tickets to a Saturday night Sidewinders game!

IN RELATED NEWS: Numbers from two of the districts in ScrambleWatch’s spotlight

In Legislative District 26, Rep. Pete Hershberger is battling Al Melvin in the GOP primary for the Senate seat. Hershberger is running a traditional campaign, while Melvin has already qualified for nearly $13,000 in Clean Elections money.

Hershberger had raised more than $58,000 for his campaign, with nearly $23,800 coming in since the start of the year. He still had more than $39,600 at the end of the reporting period, which was May 31.

That gives him a financial advantage over Melvin, although Clean Elections rules will give Melvin a dollar-for-dollar match of every dime that Hershberger spends, up to three times Melvin’s original check for $12,921.

Hershberger will need plenty of bucks to defend himself against Melvin’s message that Hershberger is out of step with the GOP platform. Melvin was able to successfully run the same kind of campaign to unseat incumbent Republican Sen. Toni Hellon two years ago in the northwest-side district. Melvin went on to lose the general election by fewer than 500 votes to Democrat Charlene Pesquiera, who is not running for re-election.

Whoever comes out of the GOP primary will face a tough race against Democrat Cheryl Cage, who has already received a check for $12,921 for her primary campaign from Clean Elections.

The three Republicans and two Democrats running for House seats in LD26, which is seen as a swing district in November, are all participating in Clean Elections. The two Democrats, incumbent Rep. Nancy Young Wright and Don Jorgensen, and Republicans Trent Humphries and Marilyn Zerull have received their Clean Elections funding, while Republican Vic Williams has not yet qualified.

Over in Legislative District 30, four Republicans are seeking two open House seats. Two of the candidates, Sharon Collins and David Gowan, are running as Clean Elections candidates. Collins has already received her check for $12,921.

The other two candidates, Frank Antenori and Doug Sposito, are running traditional campaigns, which has left them at a financial disadvantage at this early stage of the game. Antenori, a former Green Beret who unsuccessfully sought a congressional seat in 2006, had raised $10,404 by the end of reporting period and had spent $8,370, leaving him with just over $2K in the bank.

Sposito, a Sonoita-area homebuilder, has raised $6,065 and spent $4,725, leaving him with $1,338 in the ban.

The two winners of the GOP primary will face Democrat Andrea Dalessandro, who has already qualified for Clean Elections, in the November general election.

Here’s an updated list of candidates who have received Clean Elections dollars.

Advertisements

38 Responses

  1. In looking at the records, I noticed Tom Prezelski has not even filed the required June 30 report. He is being fined every day by the AZ Secretary of State.

    How can we trust him to handle the State budget if he can’t or won’t even file his own campaign finance report on time?

  2. What is Hershberger blowing his money on so early? Looks like he treats his campaign cash like he does taxpayer money. He spends, spends, spends!

  3. Hey, Daniel Patterson: If you’re going to post as LD29 Voter to bash your opponent, you won’t be eligible for our Sidewinder ticket package prize!

  4. Jim — I am a LD29 voter and constituent, as well as a top candidate who is working hard and following the rules as part of our clean campaign.

    The comment on Prezelski failing to file his required campaign finance report, which he still hasn’t done, is not bashing, it’s just the facts, see: http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/CommitteeDetail.aspx?src=cc&id=200893652

    People want and need to know when incumbents are not following campaign finance laws.

    No problem on the Sidewinders tickets, give them to someone else. My daughter and I already go to games for fun and to support local baseball, and she has some free tickets recently won as part of a kids reading program.

  5. Are candidates allowed to spend campaign money on churches ?

    I just noticed Victor Soltero “donating” to Saint Augustine Cathedral.

    Not too surprising since it’s obvious he votes the way the Archbishop tells him too, but I thought they were more discrete about it

  6. I also notice that Tim Bee seems to be getting donations all the way from Florida, from the owner of Tucson Greyhound Racing, and even the company Secretary seems to want to contribute the maximum amount.

  7. Daniel Patterson is such a weasel, first he tries to trash his opponent anonymously and then, second, when Nintzel tools him, he uses his kid as a prop. Yech! Daniel, you’ll fit in up there in Phoenix just fine.

    Trashing someone you’re running against and trying to keep your fingers clean is a time-honored political trick. Patterson has been trying to trash Prezelski and the rest of his opponents to anyone who will listen, but meanwhile he acts like a do-gooder, self-righteous prick who would never stoop to such tactics. Too bad, Daniel, because now everyone knows.

  8. Whoa there Choadie!

    Me thinks thou dost protest too much! In the past I’ve noticed your bashing comments about Cruz and now you are after Patterson too.

    So, Choadie McDougal, me thinks your anonymous blasting and bashing of the others points to you being a candidate yourself. And not a very confident candidate. Which seems to be quite warranted, given the truth of how qualified a man like Mr. Patterson is to serve the people. In doing my homework on the candidates – this guy is the man for the job.

    The real crux of the matter is that Patterson IS an LD29 voter -and he had every right to comment as a voter. And as a voter he is right to bring up why hasn’t Prezelski even bothered to file on time with the state according to the Clean Election rules? After all, right now Prezelski still is the State Representative for LD29! And the truth is, that’s one of the issues everyone in LD29 always complains about Prezelski – that he just doesn’t care – period. We’ve all complained that he just doesn’t give a damn, not only about the voters, but that he is downright sloppy in how he represents his district. So, even if Patterson had identified himself as a candidate, instead of an LD29 voter the first time, it wouldn’t change the truth of his comment one iota! That’s the REAL point here.

    Furthermore, I see that Patterson immediately responded to Nintzel in his role as a candidate. What this really shows is that Patterson is a stand up guy and that he can be counted on to do the right thing. He didn’t have to do that – he could have ignored the whole Nintzel thing. This is the kind of guy I want representing me and the rest of us up in Phoenix. Someone who will stand up and do the right thing even when it means that he might take a hit for it.

    The problem for YOU here, Choadie, is that this lowly stooping to calling people names like ‘prick’ and ‘weasel’ reveal absolutely everything about your character, and say nothing that would question why I shouldn’t cast my vote for Patterson. By the way, we voters are the real focus of this contest, lest you have forgotten. Without us there is no democracy.

    I am noting that you did not put into question Patterson’s stance on issues or performance, but simply penned forth a childish ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks always render the attacker impotent in their ability to be taken seriously or credibly. On that note though, I do believe the words ‘prick’ and ‘weasel’ are yours to own – funny how that always works out. Now, you see everyone really does know who YOU are!

    I say go Daniel Patterson!

  9. Maria,

    Personally, I think all of the candidates in LD29 are socialists–including Prezelski. It’s kinda like exchanging Stalin with Mao as far as I’m concerned. I really don’t see them voting any differently from one another and seeing as they will be ineffectively mired in the minority in a Republican legislature (thank you, Mark Desimone!), it really doesn’t matter what their stances are.

    I am bedazzled, however, by your use of distraction to defend Patterson. I believe they call that the heterogenium rhetorical device. Bravo! Please continue to focus on what wasn’t said, rather than what was: namely that Patterson has been shamelessly attacking his opponents and trying to keep his hands clean at the same time. You’re right he IS a LD 29 voter, but more importantly, he’s also a freaking candidate for office in LD 29–which is more relevant? If you are not trying to be deceptive why wouldn’t you just state that?

    As for him copping to Nintzel–he really didn’t have a choice–because Nintzel figured out who he was and announced it to the world. So, no it doesn’t sound like he’s a “stand up guy” but more like a guy who got caught with his pants down and admitted the obvious.

    Since you probably won’t adequately address my arguments, Maria, I’d like to ask you to at least clarify what proof you have that Prezelski doesn’t “care about LD 29”?

    So, I too say, “GO Daniel Patterson! Go and continue to sow discord in your primary so that all of you might get picked off by someone who doesn’t believe in collectivization and “each according to his means”. (feel free to add hyperbole and red-baiting to your moral outrage to my ad hominem attacks, Maria — if that is your real name…)

  10. What is *your* real name, “choadie”?

  11. Above, Daniel Patterson, who is running to represent LD29 as State Representative this year, hid his identity on ScrambleWatch to, as Mr. Nintzel put it, “bash his opponents”.

    Yet, a simple check into Patterson’s two campaign finance reports (released January 31, 2008

    http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/PublicReports/2008/7E631A66-1D96-4C1A-9E3C-2BF903CA92B1.pdf

    and June 30, 2008

    http://www.azsos.gov/cfs/PublicReports/2008/93B7687B-94E2-42A5-BBD7-B4AE9F03D2D5.pdf

    ) raises serious questions about Patterson’s strict adherence to campaign finance laws that he claims. Whether a simple accounting oversight or a malicious attempt to deceive the voters of LD29, Patterson has not followed the same campaign finance laws he accuses his opponents of disregarding.

    Listed below (in a series of comments since Mr. Nintzel said I could post many in order to get my full set of findings across), are some of Mr. Patterson’s more serious financial discrepancies:

  12. Missing Cost of Website

    Daniel Patterson has been using his campaign website, danielpatterson.net

    http://www.danielpatterson.net

    as a hub for all of his campaign activities, and is the primary source of advertisement for his campaign. His website includes the disclaimer that it is “paid for by Daniel Patterson for Arizona House Campaign Committee”.

    A WHOIS public record check

    http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=danielpatterson.net

    on the domain name danielpatterson.net reveals that it was registered by Patterson on March 19, 2007 and will expire on March 19, 2009.

    http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/registry-data.jsp?domain=danielpatterson.net

    This two-year registration was ordered by and processed through DreamHost Web Hosting,

    http://www.dreamhost.com/

    which now hosts the website’s files on its servers. DreamHost Web Hosting lists the price for a two-year hosting and domain registration service at $214.80 ($8.95/year).

    https://signup.dreamhost.com/

    Given that danielpatterson.net is widely publicized as Patterson’s campaign website, and is being used by Patterson to communicate his platform to the voting public, Patterson is obligated to report all or part of the cost of registering the domain and web hosting services in his campaign finance reports as either an in-kind contribution from himself to the campaign (subject to Patterson’s personal contribution and campaign seed money limits) or as a reimbursement to himself (which should have been processed within seven days of the launch of his campaign).

    Yet, no contributions or expenditures fitting the cost of his website (or any other web-related service) appear in either of Patterson’s January 31st, 2008 or June 30th, 2008 campaign finance reports.

  13. Missing Cost of Bumper Stickers

    Daniel Patterson has been widely distributing bumper stickers and encouraging Tucsonans to post them on their cars as part of his campaign to represent LD29.

    As early as October 2007, Patterson has made bumper stickers available to voters. On April 3rd, 2008, several witnesses attending the monthly LD29 district meeting and the subsequent Drinking Liberally event remember Patterson handing out bumper stickers to attendees while asking for their support for his campaign.

    No contributions or expenditures fitting the cost of these bumper stickers appear in either of Patterson’s January 31st, 2008 or June 30th, 2008 campaign finance reports.

    Daniel Patterson’s campaign has used his website and these bumper stickers for the bulk total of all their advertising up to May 31st, 2008. But, according to Patterson’s campaign finance reports, not a single penny has been spent on any form of advertising, merchandise or campaign literature.

  14. Petty Cash

    Since the start of his campaign, Patterson’s campaign has withdrawn $600 in petty cash ($200 on December 14, 2007; $200 on January 15, 2008; $200 on March 27, 2008). Campaign finance laws require that the name and address of the person who makes the withdrawal are listed with each petty cash withdrawal. But, Patterson’s campaign fails to report the name of the person who received the petty cash in either of his campaign finance reports – this is a clear violation of campaign finance laws.

    More interesting, however, is the unusually high amount of money Patterson’s campaign has withdrawn in petty cash. The $600 of petty cash Patterson’s campaign has withdrawn represents 29% of his total campaign expenditures reported, and is Patterson’s second highest source of campaign spending up to May 31, 2008.

    Uses of petty cash do not need to be reported in periodic campaign finance reports, so voters have no way of verifying that Patterson spent his petty cash according to campaign finance laws.

    The question then becomes: do Patterson’s unusually high withdrawals of petty cash represent legitimate uses of campaign funds, or a deliberate strategy to conceal Patterson’s more questionable campaign spending and side-step campaign finance laws?

    Either way, Patterson should immediately publicize the receipts associated with his petty cash spending.

  15. Meeting Reimbursement

    In Patterson’s January 31st, 2008, Patterson reports a $82.15 expenditure on December 4, 2007, reimbursing himself for taking a “meeting” – no further details about where this meeting is, or why it qualifies for reimbursement by the campaign are provided in Patterson’s January 31, 2008 report.

    While campaign finance laws allow candidates to reimburse themselves for travel, Patterson’s campaign fails to provide sufficient details about this reimbursement.

    Further, Patterson’s next line-item expenditure is for $38.51 in travel reimbursement for gas, also dated on December 4, 2007. Thus, it is clear that the $82.15 in reimbursement does not reimburse for travel costs, but is for some other unexplained expenditures associated with this meeting.

    Patterson fails to disclose the specifics of the $82.15 he reimbursed himself from the campaign for this meeting, and whether the expenditure meets the standards set by Arizona’s campaign finance laws.

  16. Daniel Patterson has claimed above to be working hard to “follow the rules” and run a “clean” campaign, yet Patterson’s campaign finance reports raise more questions than answers about his campaign’s spending. Patterson’s campaign has failed to provide sufficient details for expenditures he does report, and has entirely neglected to report the costs of his website and bumper stickers.

    Sky Jacobs, Patterson’s campaign treasurer, receives $100/month from Patterson’s campaign to perform professional accounting and bookkeeping services. With her services representing the highest source of Patterson’s campaign spending ($800 or 39.8% of Patterson’s total expenditures reported), why aren’t Patterson’s accounts more transparent?

    Patterson questioned Rep. Prezelski, asking “how we can trust him to handle the State budget if he can’t or won’t even file his own campaign finance report on time?”

    Well, Mr. Patterson, how can we trust you to handle the State budget if you have repeatedly misreported your own campaign expenditures to Tucson’s voting public?

    Hypocrisy is not a virtue.

  17. Let Prezelski finally reveal his records and we can then have a fair comparison.

  18. One of the cardinal rules of campaigning is “beware of blowback”. The only thing more devastating than a blistering attack is a blistering counterattack. When you start bashing your opponents, beware the opening and the license you give them to whack you back. Patterson tried to avoid this bit of nastiness with the whole “LD 29 Voter” business, which clearly backfired, now Christine comes along, puts on her green eyeshade and sifts through the detritus of Patterson’s campaign finance reports. It would be irritating and pendantic if it weren’t for the fact that Patterson invited this on himself by acting like a dick.

    Oh, and “Sarah”, my full name is Choadlet Macelroy MacDougal, the loving son of Cecil and Beezus MacDougal of Christchurch, New Zealand.

  19. The attacks by ‘Christine L’ are without basis. We are running a clean campaign in accordance with Clean Election rules and will continue to do so. If anyone has any questions they are free to call us, which by the way, ‘Chrisitne L’ has not done.

  20. Sky Jacobs is Treasurer for Daniel Patterson for AZ House.

  21. “The attacks by ‘Christine L’ are without basis.”

    That’s your defense? Call us? WTF?

    Translation: “There’s nothing to see here. Move along.”

    Sorry, Danny, but ya gotta do better than that. The lady with the green eyeshade sorta punked you and your response was, well, lame. Since Christine has put all this hard work into looking into your reports, maybe she should take the next step and send this on to the good folks at the Clean Elections Commission to sort out. Maybe they’ll give you a call.

    What do you think, Christine?

  22. I have been reading these posts for the past few days. This whole thing should be called ‘witch hunt.’ You people have way too much time on your hands.

    Clearly, your’e just out to cause trouble wherever you can for the candidates. No wonder so many good people refuse to run for office!

    I think if the Treasurer of the dammed campaign states there is no basis to “Christine L’s” ffrenzy of postings, and gives the invitation to call him directly if anyone has any questions, then it clearly shows complete lack of credibilty to all her BS. I checked out all of those links – what BS she is trying to pull! You people are just teed off that your scare tactics didn’t produce the results you had hoped for and now yur’e issuing threats to the candidate and challenges to the poster Christine.

    What are you REALLY trying to do here? This is nothing more than a smear campaign against a candidate.

    Why on earth would a Treasurer of a campaign respond to the ridiculous accusations of some wacky anonymous poster on an inflammatory website? I think the Treasurer handled this with dignity. Tht of course is a word you no nothing about, choadie man. I am going to report this site to a watch group.

  23. First of all, everything I’ve posted is absolutely true, and verifiable through the public records I’ve linked. What I can’t prove, I raise questions about — and you, Mr. Patterson, have a responsibility to the voters to respond to those questions with a clear explanation right now.

    I challenge anyone (Mr. Patterson and Sky Jacobs included) to point out any piece of evidence that I have presented that is fabricated or “without basis”.
    But if you can’t do it, than I’m right, and you should get out of this race, Mr. Patterson, for the good of the Democratic Party.

    Ms. Jacobs, you pointed out that I haven’t called the campaign with my questions. I haven’t. But I did email my findings to every candidate (with a campaign email address) in this race. You’ve been made aware of my findings, and so have the rest of the campaigns — I did this to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to approach my findings equally.

    Your unwillingness to respond to my charges suggest that you have no factual problem with my information and questions; instead, your accusation that I should have called you rather than submit my entry to the Muckraker challenge (which, incidentally, was all about combing through public campaign records and publicly posting your findings) suggests your campaign is annoyed that I haven’t helped you HIDE these discrepancies from the other candidates and from the voters.

    The Clean Elections Commission states that its message is to help raise “public confidence” in political candidates. Publishing campaign finance records is intended to give the voting public a clear, transparent record of how candidates are spending their money — to help us trust that these candidates will truly represent us in public office.

    Right now, there are Democrats all over Tucson who are fighting for election integrity. Transparent reporting of campaign finances is your highest responsibility as a Democratic candidate. Mr. Patterson, people gave you money because they believe in your cause; when you misuse it or hide it, you slap each and every one of your contributors — as well as the Democratic voters of Tucson — in the face.

    Not only that, you attack Rep. Prezelski for not filing his report on time, while trying to hide your identity. Yet, your own public campaign finance records obfuscate how you use your money. I find that hypocritical.

    Now’s your chance to be honest with the voters, Mr. Patterson. The very least you can do is respect the voters and provide an explanation to the questions I have raised.

    Choadie, I have looked into filing a complaint with the CEC. It turns out anyone can file a complaint with the information I’ve posted here because it has also become public knowledge. Here’s the Link

    http://www.azcleanelections.gov/ccecweb/ccecays/ccecPDF.asp?docPath=docs/HowToFileComplaint.pdf

    Personally, while I think a complaint against the Patterson campaign may be warranted based on what I have submitted, I haven’t decided if I want to submit a formal complaint myself. I’m a staunch Democrat who doesn’t want to hurt other Democrats — but I do want all the Democrats to play by the rules.

    Mr. Patterson has had three days to salvage this situation by providing an explanation for his discrepancies and putting his records back in order. He hasn’t yet. That’s a fact.

  24. As someone who has been following this whole ‘muckkracer’ idea for this section of the Weekly – this is what you said ‘Christine L’ in the 5th paragraph from the end – of your above post – and this sentence is what this is all about for you and the Choad man – Here is your sentence – “Not only that, you attack Rep. Prezelski for not filing his report on time, while trying to hide your identity.” That is what this whole thing is about for you two anonymous posters!

    Now, how stupid do you think the readers of this website are???? This is really sad man. Getting on somerevengeful and hideous tirade, trying to ruin a candidate because of your own immature perceptions of some perceived slight is unconscionable.

    Threatening candidates unless they perform as you dictate, baiting them to get involved in these loser postings that you have spent your hours and days on – is quite illuminating.

    I have printed out each one from the day this whole muckracker challenge idea began and have every single posting of when you began this smear tactic campaign against Patterson.

    There are several sources, beside the proper government authorities, that would be quite interested in what you two,’ Choadie and Christine L’ have had to say in your irresponsible personal attacks against an enormously qualified candidate. Completely, revengeful, unwarranted atacks against an individual that is willing offer his life to the service of our communty here in our little Tucson town. Yes, they will be quite interested indeed. I aim to inform and provide those sources with the printed word of your smear tactics.

    It is glaringly apparent that this candidate has followed the Clean Election rules – and you two should be ashamed of yourselves . Absolutely ashamed.

  25. “There are several sources, beside the proper government authorities, that would be quite interested in what you two have had to say…I aim to inform and provide those sources with the printed word of your smear tactics.”

    What is that supposed to mean? Truly one of the most oblique, hollow and odd threats imaginable. Jennifer, I nominate you Director of Wastewater Management for the great municipality of Crazytown!

  26. Mr Patterson, you have failed to answer the questions and concerns posed to you. These accusations are far more serious than Tom P.’s late filing, for which he is being fined.

    Where is that money going, Dan? How and when your web site paid for?? Was it paid for BEFORE expenditures are legally allowed?

    Yeah, I’m not using my real name, but then again I am not running for office, either. Posting under a Nom de Guerre in an attempt to soil your opponent is a dirty, cheap trick. A smarter man would have asked a friend to post it for you, and from a computer that you don’t use. (Tracing e-mails and web postings is just too damned easy these days, and one doesn’t need to invoke powers granted under FISA to do it).

    Cruz’s ‘picadillos’ from 5 or more years ago are not of a major concern to the voters in ’29. Nor will Tom’s late filing, as long as it is accurate. Your lack of integrity and the lack of integrity of your campaign IS of grave concern, however.

    Perhaps Mr. Nintzel will shine some more light on you, Daniel, as you have prodded him to do on some of your opponents.

  27. Wow! I heard people talking about this @ Drinking Liberally last week, but DAMNED! I think that the Star or Citizen should hire Christine an investigative reporter, she sure seems to have gotten quite a bit of info, and seems to have backed much of it up this evidence. Haven’t seen any serious reporting on local elections like this from the local news outlets for a looong time.

  28. Looking at all this stuff I am wondering why anyone hasn’t bothered to contact Patterson’s treasurer,Sky Jacobs. I saw a post up there from him/her stating there was no basis for her attacks. They are running a clean campaign according to the rules. Wouldn’t contacting the treasurer, as invited to do so be the most logical, fair thing to do? That is if this isn’t just some sort of revengeful vendetta against Patterson – which it is clear it is.

    This anonymous poster Christine L is hardly and ‘investigative’ reporter! I looked all of this stuff up -on Patterson and she is only trying to implicate him in something that does not exist! That is not investigative reporting – that is called ‘yellow’ journalism. Look that up – unless you are too lazy -and you will see it is accurate. Everyone knows who is behind these postings and it is pretty obvious that that ‘someone’ is really threatened by the heavily qualified Mr. Patterson.

    Ah, how obvious this all is to us voters who take the time to actually investigate and inform ourselves before we head to the polls!!

  29. Too much credit is being given to Christine L. because she supposedly came up with some juicy stuff about Patterson. But, in all her postings, I’ve yet to come across the actual law she has accused Patterson of breaking. Christine L.’ s accusations border on libel, as far as I’m concerned.

    Furthermore, I don’t really see a problem with Paterson not coming on this crappy website and answering all of these rantings disguised as learned allegations. If I were running for office, I really wouldn’t spend too much eyeball time explaining myself to a bunch of bored posters in their pajamas.

  30. Ah, Robert Johnson, if you’d only stuck to playing the blues and not selling your soul to the devil…

    With clean elections, the law, J’Sol and Robert Johnson, is pretty clear: you can’t spend money — except for seed money — unless you qualify. Regardless, you have to list it on your campaign finance reports. Does he have a website, for example? Did he report everything? Has he reported all of the items he’s spent money on? According to Christine he hasn’t, according to Sky he has. Don’t explain it to us, Patterson, splain it to the Clean Elections commission.

  31. By the way coming from New Zealand I’m kinda partial to my “Lord of the Rings” Ringwraith PJs. So back off J’Sol! We kiwis may be just a nation of sheepherders, but Sauron watches all…

  32. J’Sol and dead blues guy, Patterson does have a website, and he must report that expenditure under campaign finance law.

    As far as Patterson having anything better to do than “Paterson not coming on this crappy website” you need to take a closer look at the top of this thread…. He was the first to post on this blog, pointing out violations committed by his opponent. He was promptly called out on the issue by Nitz himself. Patterson opened himself to this whole mess.

    I took a look at the reports, and Patterson does not list any expenditures for his website hosting or construction (and I believe that even if someone built his site for free, he would have to list that as an in-kind contribution.) Christine’s points are well researched and documented. Something she left out is that his treasurer is also a contributor to his campaign. There is nothing illegal about it, but it is a bit odd.

  33. Oh, please. You all need to get a grip. Patterson had his site up and running before collecting clean election fives. If this is all you guys have to work with, that’s pretty pathetic.

  34. I agree with Robert and will go one step further – I believe ‘YELLOW JOURNALISM’ is Christine L’ new branding – everything she has said or done has been to ‘scandalize, exaggerate, and mislead us readers and votersinto thinking and believing that Patterson has done anything wrong – when in fact he hasn’t!

    A closer look at the actual Clean Elections Rules on financial reporting shows that the reports are only allowed to filed at specific intervals – the next one being at the end of July – that is when Patterson would be filing these items – according to the Clean Election Rules Committee – whom by the way I have acutally spoken to!
    Did Christine L ever tink to tell us that when Patterson actually received his funding form Clean Elections? NO !

    What a LOSER CHRISTINE IS for trying to make something out of nothing – when all along she didn’t even bother to find out about or understand (is she capable?) the actual Rules she was accusing Patterson of breaking!

    Christine gets the award for IGNORANCE – and worse – trying to defame a very credible candidate in order to gain interest in her lunatic posts. She owes Mr. Patterson and Sctramblewatch a very big apology – meanwhile, Patterson is very busy with what he should be busy with – his cleanly run campaign.

  35. James:
    Ad Hominem attacks is ‘Yellow Journalism”. Christine pointed out some facts and observations and some issues she sees with Patterson’s financial reporting. (the whole
    purpose of the muckrakers challenge)

    Take a look at the reports yourself. He doesn’t list expenditures for his website. And you are wrong about reporting dates. There was a report due (and filed) on Jan 31 and June 30. She references the reports in her posts. The next filing is the pre-primary report due by Aug 21st. You can see the dates for yourself here:
    http://www.azcleanelections.com/ccecweb/ccecays/ccecPDF.asp?docPath=docs/2008CandidateGuide.pdf

    At Drinking Liberally last night, Patterson tried to tell me that he was told by his lawyer that he did not have to list his website since he owned it before he decided to run, and he may have registered the domain name before her decided to run, and may have even had a site up. However, once he decided to run and he used the registered domain, danielpatterson.net, and a hosting service for promoting his campaign, it became either an expense or a contribution. How this is an expense is clear (and this is not on a free webhosting service). If he pre-paid for hosting for one or more years PRIOR to his filing, it is then considered a contribution. Here is what counts as contributions, according to the Clean Elections Candidate Guide (URL is above)
    Contributions Include:
    • A contribution made to retire campaign debt.
    • Money or the fair market value of anything directly or indirectly given or loaned to an elected official for the
    purpose of defraying the expense of communications with constituents, regardless of whether the elected
    official has declared his or her candidacy.
    • The entire amount paid to a political committee to attend a fund-raising or other political event and the entire
    amount paid to a political committee as the purchase price for a fund-raising meal or item. However, it
    is not considered to be a contribution if the actual cost of the meal or fund-raising item is for the purchaser’s
    personal use and not for resale, and the actual cost is the entire amount paid by the purchaser in
    connection with the event. The exception does not apply to auction items.
    • Unless specifically exempted, the provision of goods or services without charge or at a charge that is less
    than the usual and normal charge for such goods and services.

    To me, it is clear in reading the reports and the CE guidelines that Patterson IS in violation of CE reporting guidelines when it comes to the issue of his website.

    Clearly, Christine is correct her assertions. She is not a yellow journalist, just POINTING OUT THE FACTS, as Daniel himself claimed he was doing when he anonymously posted the item about Prez’s missing report.

    BTW: I sent this same info to Daniel Patterson prior to posting this.

  36. I witnessed Patterson respectfully trying to talk to you about this, aw88, and I saw you to be angry, frustrated, and quite frankly, quite belligerent. You even cut him short, and to the amazement of those watching, you abruptly got up and moved away.

    If this were merely about this nitpicking thing or that at issue here, then why not confront Patterson in person and rest assured that it would be listened to and appreciated?

    And, I don’t really care about any lame ass school yard excuse about who started what. As an incumbent with some experience in the state leg, TomP should have had his act together and gotten his report in on time. And, Patterson pointed that out and left it at that.

    What’s really at issue here is the yellow journalism allowed on this site. The facts are facts, but character attacks that have been allowed in these comments are inexcusable.

  37. I got angry and frustrated because I felt he was accusing me of being part of some pack, follow-the leader mentality. I didn’t just read the the comments by Christine L and dive in. I looked at what she was posting and looked over the CE info candidates were given (as you can see).

    I also was upset at what I see as playing a bit underhanded. His anonymous post and a comment he made during the debate.
    I did apologize to Daniel if I came of as harsh. I do tend to get loud, as most regulars @ DL will attest.
    As for abruptly getting up, I went over to talk to another DL regular about some other issues.
    AS for the character attacks, most seem to be coming from the Patterson supporters.

  38. “The facts are facts, but character attacks that have been allowed in these comments are inexcusable.”

    You’re right, Sarah, how about this one that started it all?

    “How can we trust him [Prezelski] to handle the State budget if he can’t or won’t even file his own campaign finance report on time?”

    How can we trust Patterson when he sneaks around, doesn’t report his expenditures and then has his surrogates whine that he’s being picked on?

    We can do it if we suspend disbelief. You’re right a lot of all of this is nitpicking. Patterson started it all off. You know what the public hates more than nitpicking? They hate hypocrisy. This is a classic example of a political opportunist masquerading as a squeaky-clean do-gooder.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: