Did Not Prohibit Credit Card Payments? Wanna Bet?

Say What, Director Rawlins

The minutes of the September 13th, 2006 meeting of the Registry reflects what I thought I heard at the meeting.

"Director Rawlins noted that the statute did not prohibit a candidate from listing a credit card as a payee at the time the reports in question were filed."

This statement is just not true.

As noted earlier, "In reality most of the changes made to the Financial Disclosure Act of 1980, via the Comprehensive Governmental Ethics Reform Act of 2006, merely codified and amplified some of the Registry’s existing Rules, while giving a more explicit explanation of the original intent for the Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980."

"Tennessee’s Campaign Financial Disclosure Act of 1980 was enacted to promote public disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures. As the agency responsible for administering this act, the registry is to ensure the timely and accurate disclosure of campaign finance information for the benefit of the public." (Comptroller of Treasury - Performance Audit - 1998)

Now, about this ‘the statute did not prohibit a candidate from listing a credit card as a payee at the time the reports in question were filed,’ comment by Director Rawlins. Not!

The 1980 Act itself just says ‘and the purpose thereof.’ The Campaign Financial Disclosure Rules, last revised in Feb. 1999, Chapter 0530-1, Section 1-.04 and titled Expenditures from Campaign Contributions says:

"When providing the purpose of an expenditure or category of expenditures as required by T.C.A. §2-10-107(a)(2)(B), a candidate shall provide a brief description of why the disbursement(s) were made. . . .credit card payments shall not be deemed sufficient".

In the Ethics Act of 2006 the statute was further amplified with:

"The purpose thereof which shall clearly identify that it is an allowable expenditure . . .The words ‘reimbursement’, ‘credit card purchase’, ‘other’ and ‘campaign expenses’ shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose. Any purchase made with a credit card shall also be disclosed as a payment to the vendor providing the item or service. Credit card payments to separate vendors shall be disclosed as separate expenditures."

(Isn’t ‘A Brief Description of Why the Disbursement Was Made,’ meant to accomplish the same function and goal, as ‘Clearly Identify That It Is An Allowable Expenditure?’)

Is there an argument that the General Assembly intended a lower disclosure standard than ‘allowable expenditures’, since the inception of the Act in 1980? It has meant the same thing all along. A brief description of ‘why’ the disbursement was made has meant all along to show that it is an allowable expenditure. Duh!!

Credit Cards Payments. The TREF Rules, last revised in 1999, are quite clear - "credit card payments shall not be deemed sufficient." The Ethics Act further amplified the Rule and is quite clear- The words ‘reimbursement’, ‘credit card purchase’ shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose.

The Question: Does the words, "American Express - Monthly Bill", in fact, have any other meaning and was it not meant to say the same thing as "Reimbursement Credit Card Purchase(s)?" Which, of course, shall not be considered acceptable description for purpose, by law.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration

Uncle Ted