Monday, September 23, 2013

The $65,000 Question

Not to make it seem like I'm picking on Charles Lollar and his campaign, but a review of his Federal Election Commission filings reveal and interesting series of payments made to Lollar from his campaign account.

In all, the filings report that Lollar received $65,000 in disbursements from his 2010 Congressional campaign account. All of the forms are easily viewable. Just click here and conduct a search for Lollar and you will be able to view the same reports that this data was culled from.

Of most interesting note on the above spreadsheet are the following, which imply that Lollar was being paid a salary by the Lollar for Congress Committee:
  • July 14, 2010: $500
  • July 20, 2010: $1,000
  • August 2, 2010: $500
  • August 11, 2010: $2,000
  • September 13, 2010: $8,000
  • October 4, 2010: $11,000
  • November 2, 2010: $12,000
  • December 1, 2010: $12,000
This means that according to FEC records Charles Lollar received $47,000 in what was labeled as salary from his Congressional campaign account during the months before and immediately after his 2010 Congressional campaign.

It's important to note that what Lollar did in receiving a salary to run for Congress is by no means illegal, and has been done a number of times over the years, by such candidates including Alan Keyes and Joe the Plumber.  While the practice of paying one's self a salary to run for office illegal, it is certainly frowned upon and was not necessarily the intent of those donors who were contributing to Lollar's run against Hoyer.

As a fiscal conservative first and foremost, the idea that one of our candidates for Governor would pay themselves a salary in order to run for office is off-putting. It's bad enough that we consider incumbents who have served a long time in office as "professional politicians", but receiving a salary to run for office means that you're receiving a salary not just for being a public servant, but merely in attempting to become a public servant. That means literally being a professional politician, receiving a salary like running for office is your job. And it gives me great pause about the future viability of such a candidate who has undertaken such a course of action...

I reached out to Lollar campaign manger Karen Winterling for comment but have not received a response. I will be delighted to provide a response when one is available.


dwb said...

Once again the GOP eats their young in public. Speaking of payroll, when i see this, sometimes I wonder if red maryland is on the Dems payroll.

Brian Griffiths said...

Yes, clearly we are the problem and we should totally be in the business of covering up the misdeeds of Republicans.....

That kind of blame the messenger idiocy is why we lose

Jason Boisvert said...

No no, dwb, it looks like they're working on clearing the field for Larry Hogan. (Check the posts on RM, see if you can find anything nice about Lollar, Craig, Bongino or Young, and then read Jeff Quinton's piece on Hogan and George)

After all, digging into one candidate's FEC filings from LAST CYCLE and complaining about something that is (according to the article itself) common practice is totally a misdeed. God forbid he should treat running for office as a full-time (temp) job. I mean, it's not like it was gonna be hard and take a lot of effort, right?

Just like a free bus from a former Marylander with Delaware tags is MISSED OPPORTUNITY and all you need to know about the Lollar launch tour. What they *should've* done is spend money they didn't have too to get MD tags.

Why don't we have video of the candidates speaking? Comments, interviews, direct material? How about where've they've been, what they've done and who they're working with? Why *is* Larry Hogan on so often but none of the gubernatorial candidates have been on the flagship show yet? Why are Larry Hogan and Ron George (Who Quinton thinks would be eliminated immediately on Hogan's entry) the only two actual or potential candidates who received neutral or positive coverage?

Jackie, your fellow host (and quasi-co-host on the flagship) may have tipped your hand a bit early, perhaps? After all, you have more recently negative on Lollar than you do on O'Malley, and O'Malley's tied (I think, haven't looked far back) with Blaine young.

And all 3 have the same amount of positive coverage.

Jason Boisvert said...

Woops, was Monoblogue, not Quinton, my fault

LtownTaxpayer said...

Would love to see the same level of scrutiny directed towards all the candidates. Unfortunately I believe that other candidates do similar things without being as above board about it. I would rather see a candidate be paid by the campaign than collecting a government paycheck while running for office. Using government resources to move around the country or state to campaign but have a single governmental type event so the campaign benefits without having to cover the costs. These career politician benefits are refreshingly NOT part of the Lollar campaign. And I believe you said that he isn't doing this during the gubernatorial campaign. Done! Next topic.

Mark said...

Nope nothing positive about David Craig here.

PrincyLyn said...

Jason, while I host a show on the Red Maryland network, my blog is my own. I don't even contribute to the Red Maryland blog, although of course I would, if asked to. So don't confuse my personal and individual voice with that of Red Maryland as a whole. That's what many of you seem to miss. Despite efforts to convince the masses otherwise, the Red Maryland team is a diverse group, with vastly differing opinions on a number of things. I've never been stifled or limited on what I say on the radio show. But with that said, my blog is my own opinion, not that of Red Maryland.

Secondly, collecting a salary is not "common practice" as Brian indicated. Submitting receipts for reimbursement is, but not collecting a salary.

You also might note that I received a response from Karen Winterling regarding the tags and her explantion, which I called in to Brian and Greg's show and shared her remarks with them.

Jason Boisvert said...

@Mark, that write-up is, imo, neutral to mildly positive, so point taken (though the post seems untagged, so someone looking for posts on Mr. Craig through the tag system would not find it)

@Jackie (presumably) With respect, you're almost a third host on the flagship, frequent caller and contributor and closely associated with RM, so while obviously the official positions of RM and RAtR may be different, it's reasonable to assume that you influence each other. Not that you conspire, but in general people who want to like each other try to agree.

I do note that you reported Mrs. Winterling's explanation, which is why I characterized RM's stance as "missed opportunity" and not "Needed to spend the money here".

I also note that Mr. Kline presented as an acceptable answer "the bus was a donation" and Mr. Griffiths accepted it, until you called in, at which point they characterized it as a "missed opportunity". That, admittedly, left me in the lurch, and set me to trying to develop some overarching explanation as to the negativity directed at Mr. Lollar.

(Incidentally, I've met Mr. Griffiths and, like me, he is naturally a negative guy - while this doesn't explain the dumpster diving into old FEC records, it *would* explain the apparent negativity if Mr. Kline is not tagging and front-paging his positive posts)

Brian Griffiths said...

Jason the only thing that was accurate about your characterization was the party where you called me Mr.