2-10-206(a)(4) - The duties of the registry include. . . (4) Review all filled statements to ensure compliance with the respective disclosure laws. Statements filed with he registry for more than two years [180 days prior to 2/15/06] shall be deemed to be sufficient, absent a showing of fraud . .
As noted earlier, the only mention of 180 days in the statues is in this Part 2 - Registry of Election Finance Act of 1989. The reference to 180 days is mentioned only one (1) time in that section that applies only the to the duties of the Registry to review and ensure compliance. It is the intent of the general assembly for the Registry to ensure enforcement of these statutes.
Didn’t and Doesn’t Happen. That's a fact, Jack!
Basically, if the Registry has not asked for corrections or further documentation in 180 days, it is deemed sufficient, absence a showing of fraud, by the Registry. This compliance sufficiency is put forth and based exclusively on the premise that the Registry has actually preformed its duty and reviewed the statement to ensure compliance with the Campaign Finance disclosure laws, within that 180 days.
First - 2-10-206(a)(4), in Part 2, concerns the duties of the Registry and has nothing to do with the filing of a sworn complaint alleging that a statement filed regarding an election does not conform to law or to the truth . . . which is found at 2-10-108(a), in Part 1 of the statute. Part 1 is known as Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980 and relates to ‘Financial Disclosure’ and Part 2 is known sd Registry of Election Finance Act of 1989 and relates to ‘Registry of Election Finance.’
Second - The Sworn Complaint is only required to allege that a statement regarding an election for which the complainer was qualified to vote does not conform to law or to the truth. Those elections to which these statements regarded, are the 2006 Primary Election and General Election of 2006. One of those elections has not even taken place and the Sworn Complaint was filed about a month after the 2006 primary, in which the Complainer did, in fact, vote.
There is no requirement in the statute, rules or case law for the Sworn Complaint to be file with an allegation of fraud, let alone be required to show fraud, before the Registry is required to revisit the statement’s compliance sufficiency via an investigation.
I find nothing in the statutes, rules or case law that even discusses, let alone allows or authorizes, the members of the Registry, sitting in a regularly scheduled monthly meeting, to dismiss any sworn complaint for any reason, let alone because the complainant did not specifically allege or show the fraud, particularly without any notice.
The only direct reference to a sworn complaint and the duties of the Registry is in 2-10-206(a)(7) which makes it a DUTY of the Registry to investigate any alleged violation upon sworn complaint or upon its own motion and the Registry has the power to conduct a contested case hearing in determining whether an actual violation has occurred.
Where the results of its (the Registry) investigation (the duty required investigation) indicate a criminal act may have occurred, the registry shall (that means required too) refer the matter to the appropriate district attorney general for criminal prosecution.
Why would the statutory scheme have the low standard of ‘indicate a criminal act may have occurred’ for the Registry to refer for criminal prosecution and the Registry require the much higher standard of ‘a showing of’ or ‘proof of" fraud for a Sworn Complaint, when the statutes requires only the allegation that the statements does not conform to law or the truth?
Why would the statutes require the candidate to maintain his campaign records for a year after the election, [now 2 years] if the statutory scheme was to bar a Sworn Complaint or bar any review for the possibility that it does not conform to law or to the truth, after 180 days?
It says on the face of the statements, for years 2003, 2004 and 2005, that Rep. Rinks paid for his monthly bill for his American Express Card, bought gifts and flowers, paid a lot to food and beverage establishments, and made a lot of ‘donations,’ with his campaign contributions, with no required ‘why’ explanations provided and none required by the Registry of Election Finance. Sounds like a Dereliction of Duty, to me.
An investigation is required to ascertain if these and his other unexplained campaign expenditures conform to the law or to the truth. Were they political or legislative expenditures and how the hell did the Registry miss these if in fact the reviewed them to ensure compliance with the disclosure laws?
Respectfully submitted for your consideration
Uncle Ted
No comments:
Post a Comment