Bill
As I understood the why the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance dismissed my 'complaint' was basically three fold.
First, Rep. Rinks' 2005 Supplement, a 'between election' year, as dated February 08, 2006, (one week before the new 'ethics' law was signed by the Governor), and the way Mr. Rawlins computed the time, my complaint was four (4) days past the 180 day time frame of the old statute, and therefore Rep. Rinks' Supplement had to be considered sufficient, although the time frame, as of February 15, 2006, is now two (2) years.
It was put forth that the Registry's hands were tied, unless I was prepared to allege and prove fraud, at the meeting.
I tried to explain that in the broadest sense, a fraud is a deception made for personal gain and that was applicable to converting campaign contributions to personal use.
I tried to explain that it was not my responsibility to allege or prove fraud, but was told that unless I was prepared to prove fraud, that day, my complaint was going to be dismissed. Duh!
Second, the Registry could not assess penalties for anything that wasn't encompassed in the statutes themself and their rules had no bearing. Mr. Rawlins tried to explain to me, and his puppets, that that was the reason the Registry couldn't or didn't raise the issues themselves.
This was after I pointed out to these folks that their own rules forbid these type of 'contributions' and their totally obscure purpose descriptions and had the Registry review for these reports for compliance, they should have returned the filings for correction, themself, within the 180 days.
Third, and my favorite, was put forth by the Chairperson,"Mr. Cook, you have to understand that Rep. Rinks' filings are not any different that the rest of the filing we get.'
One could accused the Registry of being not only complacent, but "in denial", about the failings of their system.
Posted by: Ted Cook at September 15, 2006 09:44 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment