Harri Anne Smith Trips Over a Poll
Remember the poll last year the Smith campaign commissioned that would convince the unofficial Wiregrass Congressional Selection Committee that she was a strong enough candidate for AL-02 that they should clear the field of Wiregrass candidates for her?
Turns out she paid for it in a way that the Federal Election Commission calls, well, “a violation of federal election rules.”
Alabama state Sen. Harri Anne Smith spent nearly $20,000 from her state campaign account last year on polling and political consulting in her bid for federal office to replace retiring U.S. Rep. Terry Everett, a violation of federal election rules.
Smith, a Republican from Slocomb, said she was not aware of laws prohibiting the mingling of state campaign funds in federal elections and that she immediately contacted the Federal Election Commission to fix the error once she discovered it.
In how many ways will she pay for that?
Related Articles:
Well, this sounds a little more serious than just an accounting error:
At issue are two Oct. 30 expenses that Smith initially paid for with her state account: $11,000 to the polling firm Market Research Insight of Gulf Breeze, Fla., and $7,098.82 to Swinehart Consulting of Pensacola. The money, in part, paid for a poll in the 2nd District pitting her against other potential Republican candidates.
At the time, Smith had not registered her congressional campaign with the FEC, even though federal law requires candidates who spend more than $5,000 to file.
The law also limits candidates from shifting money between accounts. While Smith can take corporate contributions for her state campaign, the use of corporate money is prohibited in federal campaigns.
But, seeing how long Fred Thompson skirted the edge of the law raising funds while “testing the waters”, I’d say the answer to your question is very few.
I do love her “I didn’t know any better” excuse.
Comment by Kathy — March 14, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Swinehart strikes again.
Comment by Anonymous — March 14, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
Kathy:
I don’t want this to sound like an excuse, but there are a lot of state office holders on both sides of the aisle who have no clue what to make of these distinctions. What she did was illegal, but it’s SHOCKING how many State Senators think they could just roll over their state campaign accounts if they ever wanted to run for congress (or can use those accounts to contribute to Federal candidates). A lot of these people are simply clueless!
Comment by I've seen it happen — March 14, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Lot depends on her opposition makes of it. Does sound like her party needs to do teaching though.
Comment by walt moffett — March 14, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
I think that voters should give serious consideration before supporting a candidate who states in her campaign ad that “Congress is not for ametures” then out of the gate violates fec law pleading the case that she was ignorant of those provisions.
Comment by anonymous — March 14, 2008 @ 4:09 pm
Danny - just in the interest of casting stones around glass houses here, hasn’t Jay Love had a number of letters - 3 I believe - from the FEC regarding inaccuracies and/or problems with his FEC reports? Kind of interesting that all those separate letters to Love (complete with warnings from the Feds about disciplinary action) didn’t get to the media, but Smith’s did . . .
Comment by Anonymous — March 14, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
Nice try anonymous - but Jay Love does not have any issues related to the FEC that are even close to Harri Anne’s issues. She VIOLATED THE LAW in a way that will normally result in a fine or other action by the FEC. If Harri Anne didn’t know, her consultant sure did know it, or should have. Maybe she should recruit people that actually know what they are doing. This isn’t the Alabama Senate Sweetheart….I mean Swinehart.
Comment by 2bDone — March 14, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Jay knows a lot about the law I guess - as he knew in the 2002 GOP primary that you can hide your liberal Democrat donors from your voters by having your 5-10 day preelection report notarized and closed on a SATURDAY (!- the FIRST day legally he could close out his report and thereby avoiding several days of donations and contributions he would normally report BEFORE the election) so you can write that check for your dirty ads prepared by liberal Democrat pol consultant Joe Perkins on SUNDAY (!) and put the State Employee Union money to pay for the ads in your account that week - still before the closing date on the reports - and thereby NOT tell the voters in your district where your money was coming from OR who it was paying until AFTER they had voted. See, Jay COULD have told the voters that he was getting all that union money and hiring liberal Democrats to run his campaign - but by using the law, he could get around that.
What Jay did was, in fact, legal. It was also dishonest and wrong. I would personally say that his current ads calling him a “tax-cutter” are also dishonest and wrong because he voted for every bit of the biggest tax hike in American history. The ads are not illegal - just deliberately misleading. In the Wiregrass we call that a lie. In Montgomery it is the way business is done. Jay Love and Joe Perkins and Mac MacArthur and Paul Hubbert - the people who work together so well - fit right in with the Montgomery crowd. But we don’t want them representing the Wiregrass in Washington.
Comment by Anonymous — March 14, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
Way to deflect Harri Anne’s violation of Federal Campaign Finance Laws. I mean we can’t afford to elect an amatuer. Oh yeah she took money from Hubbert and MacArthur. The Lord hates a hypocrite.
Comment by Annonymous — March 14, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
Do you feel better #8? Amazing hypocrisy as post #9 pointed out.
Go tell it to someone that actually believes it. All this garbage about Jay Love and others you want to throw in the category of voting for the biggest tax hike in American history…ummm….maybe you need to re check your history. Amendment 1 was put to a public vote - the legislature only allowed the public to take an up or down vote on it - that is all they did. Personally, I am glad some legislators actually want to give the general public a chance to say yes or no on such a big issue. But then again - I guess Jay Love could have done some polling and called his campaign consultant before deciding whether or not to allow a public vote on such.
I guess some people like to run more polls than Bill Clinton and stick their finger to the wind to see how to vote all the time. That would be Senator Smith…ask anybody in the know and they will agree. Principals anyone?
Comment by JT — March 14, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Right on JT. All these Amendment One psychos drive me nuts. The state legislature allowed the general public to vote on it…….period. It has no place in a race for U.S. Congress in 2008. Maybe it would reflect on someone’s record if the vote was actually an up or down to levy the taxes. But that was not the vote so don’t try to make it something it was not.
I rather hear Harri Anne, Jay Love and others talk about the real issues of War, Energy Policy, Immigration, Entitlement Spending, etc. I hope there is a debate or some hard questions and some of these candidates actually take positions and as has been said, they don’t rely on constant polling to make those policy decisions.
Comment by Chris R — March 14, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
I am so sick and tired of the Stan Pates of the world
who don’t have the bulls to run for office but will twist the truth and make it suit their purpose. Jay Love only voted to allow the people the right to vote on taxes. Tell me when the last time when any party let you vote on a tax increase. I am sure the
Pate-ites take advantage of every loop hole in the tax code they can, but let a politician obey the law and file his or her papers in the “legal fashion” and all of a sudden, they are dishonest. What hypocrisy!!
If it’s legal, it’s legal, so get off the dishonest stuff. Take your big rear end down and file an ethics
complaint if you feel like you have evidence of wrong doing or better yet, qualify and run for the office yourself. By the way, what have you personally done lately to help your state, community, or charitable group, or are you one of those who just like to complain from your couch. Just for your FYI, I gave three years of my life in a war era to protect your right to spew out these lies, but I have to admit sometimes your type of self righteous garbage makes me sick at my stomach. I have served on many boards, civic groups, drug rehab support groups, mission trips, and view myself as a right wing hawk that used to think he was conservative until all you Roy Moore nuts made me realize that it’s Grace not Works. I think the LORD said it best when HE said, “who art thou O man to judge another man’s servant. Forgive me for rambling but what a deal.
Comment by poljunkie — March 14, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
I haven’t decided who I’m supporting in the congressional race, but I will say this- I don’t think this will have that much of an impact on the race. This is kind of above the head of the average voter, however I do think Sen. Smith should have done her homework before messing up like this.
Comment by Terry — March 15, 2008 @ 1:33 am
Glad to see all the comments about Love and others that voted to allow the people to vote statewide on amendment one. They did NOT vote for a tax increase - they voted to allow a referendum. I agree that it is old and tiring to hear the Harri Anne crew spew off about this over and over.
Comment by Hasser — March 15, 2008 @ 8:18 am
I didn’t see much in post #8 about amendment 1 - I saw a lot about Jay Love lying to the people of his house district about his funding for his race (all from liberal special interests) and getting around election disclosure laws by shrewd dishonesty. Haven’t seen much response to that, Dax.
Jay has exhibited - throughout his public life - a tendency to mislead. His current “tax-cutter” ads fall into that category. That was the salient point of post #8. And that point is pertinent in light of the current almost total financing of his campaign by a “loan” - and just like in 2002 it is probable that those “loans” are guaranteed by liberal special interests. He is doing it in 2008 just like he did in 2002. And it stinks just as badly now.
Comment by Anonymous — March 15, 2008 @ 8:54 am
Regarding the Republican Senator’s violation of campaign finance law:
Didn’t Nancy Worley get indicted for a violation of campaign finance law?
I’m sure AG Troy King and/or US Attorney Leura Canary will be paying Mrs. Smith a visit. They will do this, of course, because they want to make sure there is not a double standard at play.
I’m very sorry Mrs. Smith’s family that they will have to go through the horrific ordeal of a state/federal investigation, but fortunately for us all Justice is Blind and pays no heed to political affiliation.
Comment by HypocrisyWatch — March 15, 2008 @ 9:19 am
I tend to think that this isn’t much of an issue either, but it does show that the Smith and Love people are out in force on this board.
Comment by No More Drama — March 15, 2008 @ 9:22 am
Post 8 talked about AMENDMENT ONE (the biggest tax hike in American history as you called it) and Post 15 is the normal “anonymous” garbage from Harri Anne. It gets old and it doesn’t fly. Let’s talk about issues. I have a feeling there will be continued silence on the Harri Anne Smith side of things when it comes to the federal issues that confront this country…until she runs a poll to determine how she feels that is.
Comment by ChrisD — March 15, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Post #8 did in fact mention Amendment 1 which Jay Love obviously voted for, flying in the face of his “tax-cutter” ads. You are right about that #18. But almost all of post #8 is about deliberately misleading (read: lies) in Love’s 2002 campaign against Bob McKee and its relation to his current campaign (remember the $300,000 “loan”) and Love’s current FEC reports which have recieved 3 separate requests from the feds for additional info (and one of which has yet to be responded to - in spite of a February 22 deadline - that might be a breach of the law as well).
Look - Harri Anne has to respond to this FEC thing. Love has to respond to his past-due request as well. But the thing post #8 pointed out is a pattern of misleading (read “lies”) from Jay Love about campaign financing going back to 2002. If Jay’s people want to talk campaign finance, they have to expect Jay’s deliberately misleading campaign from 2002 to be on the table.
Comment by Anonymous — March 15, 2008 @ 5:49 pm
And BTW Jay Love lying about Bob McKee and taking money from liberal special interests and refusing to tell his district about it IS an issue - period. That issue deserves discussion and will get that discussion. And it is also cold hard fact.
Comment by Anonymous — March 15, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Dear “anonymous” (i.e. Harri Anne) thanks for the usual garbage. If Love has violated FEC rules, please show us a link. Once again a vote to allow a public referendum on Amendment 1 was not and still is not today, a vote for a tax increase to be levied upon the public. get real.
Comment by ChrisD — March 15, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
To all those that think Amendment One is an issue in a Congressional race….wake up. What about energy policy, the war on terror, the future of Social Security? This is not the state legislature you newbies. I agree with the bloggers on here that the Amendment One vote in the state legislature was only a vote to allow a public referendum…period. Get to some real issues folks.
Comment by HartfordDon — March 16, 2008 @ 7:39 am
I agree with the last post. If Smith, and others for that matter, plan to run a race based on Amendment One then they are talking about the wrong issue(s). This country has some major federal policy issues that it needs to deal with and I would like to hear about those from the candidates instead of this school yard like dribble about Amendment One. It’s ridiculous and as has been said, it was only a vote to either let it go to a public referendum, or not. Personally I was against Amendment One but I was glad it went to a vote by the general public. On such an important issue, a public referendum was a good idea. That is what Love voted for so Smith and others that try to twist the vote are doing just that…twisting.
Comment by Anonymous — March 16, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
Slight correction to the previous post: Love didn’t just “vote for a referendum.” The referendum WAS part of the Amendment One package and Love voted for the referendum - Harri Anne Smith did too. But Love also voted for more than a dozen separate tax hikes - none of which Smith voted for (and for the record, David Grimes voted for most of those taxes as well).
But it is wrong to state that “they just voted ror a referendum.” It is factually wrong. For the point of reference, go to the ALISON system that lists - under the 2003 First Special Session - all of the different bills commonly referred to as the “Amendment One Package.”
For the record I don’t think that Amendment One is a huge issue and I doubt it will be one in this race, but there was a difference between voting for the referendum and the taxes. I don’t like seeing spin obliterate facts even on issues that are essentially sidebars.
Comment by Referendum one PART of Amendment One — March 17, 2008 @ 9:56 am
As of today - for what it is worth and if it matters - Jay Love still has not responded to a letter from the FEC that demanded a response by February 22, 20008 under threat of penalties. So I don’t think Love can cast any stones here until we know if he is in the clear himself. In any event all of this stiff strikes me as petty by the campaigns.
Comment by Anonymous — March 18, 2008 @ 8:53 am
Love has not violated FEC rules…period. Smith has. That’s the difference.
Comment by GOPer — March 18, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Ummm . . .we don’t know that Love hasn’t violated the rules - that’s why he has recieved the letters - to which he has yet to respond. When he responds to the FEC inquiries we’ll know if there has been any violations - not before.
Comment by Anonymous — March 18, 2008 @ 11:33 am
Let’s see how about we worry about real issues here such as how we can escape this recession we are headed for.
Comment by Anonymous — March 18, 2008 @ 12:28 pm
Excellent point #28 - this other stuff (read: this entire thread) is past tiresome
Comment by Anonymous — March 18, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
Harri Anne supporters love to throw mud and not make any mention of how she feels on pressing federal issues. All you hear them say are negative things about all the other candidates and how great Harri Anne is because she was against Amendment One. Seems like she is best suited to stay in the State Senate since those are the issues and the folks she likes to talk about. I have a better chance of being struck by lightning than I do at hearing Harri Anne debate federal issues with other candidates.
Comment by JDBJDBJDB — March 18, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Stop beating dead horses on Amendment 1 and the campaign finances. I want to know about how these candidates plan to address the banking crisis, immigration, war on terror, Iraq, dwindling troops, no child left behind, and NAFTA.
Let’s talk about real issues.
Comment by Shajawa — March 18, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
The voice of reason! Thank you, Shajawa
Comment by Buzz — March 19, 2008 @ 8:51 am