Joan Betts Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 The following was posted on a national board for the elderly here in DC by Jonathan Rees --------------------------- No matter how much money you have in your campaign war chest, it does no good if it is not spent correctly. I looked carefully at the campaign finances of my chief protagonist Sam Brooks and this is what I found. Sam Brooks is currently unemployed and is renting an apartment to live in and uses it as his campaign headquarters. Despite the fact that he claims he has received $28k in campaign contributions, most of this will be going to pay the rent and incidentals on that apartment, his food and other essentials. If this figure remains constant, then about $20k of this amount will be directed to Brooks and his own upkeep between now and September 2006. This leaves $8k to pay his chair, treasurer and put to actual campaign promotions. My point here is, campaign contributions are meant to go for promoting a campaign not to be used by a candidate to pay her/his rent food and other personal things but our campaign finance laws are too loosely written. I am proud to say that 100% of my money has gone into campaign literature and my staff is made up of volunteers. This is what a campaign is all about. I am sure that all of my other rivals are running a very honest campaign because they are mature adults who are in it for the people they want to represent and not to feed their own mouths or egos. Also if this is any consolation, less than $1k of the money Brooks received came from contributors in Ward 3 (His own chair gave him $500). Most of it came from outside of DC and the DuPont Circle and Capitol Hill areas of DC but very little of it. To me, using campaign contributions for your own support of rent, utilities and food is dishonest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldengirl Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 This of course coming from a candidate who did not even file a financial report as he is under the impression he can win the election for less than $500. I don't know about the rest of you, but I implicitly trust someone on financial matters with such obvious common sense. And what national board for the elderly? Do you mean Rees is now harassing some poor nursing home residents by posting things on their bulletin board? I do feel for anyone who is going to be subjected to Rees' campaigning (read stalking) over the next many months. The following was posted on a national board for the elderly here in DC by Jonathan Rees --------------------------- No matter how much money you have in your campaign war chest, it does no good if it is not spent correctly. I looked carefully at the campaign finances of my chief protagonist Sam Brooks and this is what I found. Sam Brooks is currently unemployed and is renting an apartment to live in and uses it as his campaign headquarters. Despite the fact that he claims he has received $28k in campaign contributions, most of this will be going to pay the rent and incidentals on that apartment, his food and other essentials. If this figure remains constant, then about $20k of this amount will be directed to Brooks and his own upkeep between now and September 2006. This leaves $8k to pay his chair, treasurer and put to actual campaign promotions. My point here is, campaign contributions are meant to go for promoting a campaign not to be used by a candidate to pay her/his rent food and other personal things but our campaign finance laws are too loosely written. I am proud to say that 100% of my money has gone into campaign literature and my staff is made up of volunteers. This is what a campaign is all about. I am sure that all of my other rivals are running a very honest campaign because they are mature adults who are in it for the people they want to represent and not to feed their own mouths or egos. Also if this is any consolation, less than $1k of the money Brooks received came from contributors in Ward 3 (His own chair gave him $500). Most of it came from outside of DC and the DuPont Circle and Capitol Hill areas of DC but very little of it. To me, using campaign contributions for your own support of rent, utilities and food is dishonest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfrankdc Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Joan, I suppose we will have to wait until the books are in to see where Mr. Brooks has spent the monies he has raised. Until then, the speculation on your part that the monies will be used for food and rent are somewhat idle. Further, you stated in another post that most of Rees's support is from non-Ward3 residents. What's is the difference? Why would you single out Mr. Brooks in your rants when you have several legitimate rivals for the open Ward 3 seat? Don't you think the amount of money raised signals legitimacy towards a serious campaign? Can anyone take your campaign seriously with little in the "war chest"? What about your hero, Scott Bolden? He has raised almost $200k towards unseating Phil Mendelson. What's the difference between the legitimacy of his campaign and that of your rivals? B. Frank Despite the fact that he claims he has received $28k in campaign contributions, most of this will be going to pay the rent and incidentals on that apartment, his food and other essentials. If this figure remains constant, then about $20k of this amount will be directed to Brooks and his own upkeep between now and September 2006. This leaves $8k to pay his chair, treasurer and put to actual campaign promotions. My point here is, campaign contributions are meant to go for promoting a campaign not to be used by a candidate to pay her/his rent food and other personal things but our campaign finance laws are too loosely written. To me, using campaign contributions for your own support of rent, utilities and food is dishonest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldengirl Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Rees et al -- You should stick to lying about things that aren't part of the public record, and things that aren't so easily refutable. A quick look at Sam's report shows that everything you just wrote is inaccurate. 'Out-of-DC contributions, only 1k in Ward 3' Wrong. Well over 1k came from Ward 3. Even a cursory examination of the report shows as much. 'Paying his rent, food with campaign money.' Wrong. He has no payment for rent on his report. He has payed a majority of his expenses to a firm called Momentum Analysis. He has several meals and food/catering expenses (six total) -- he is required by law to list those meals if they're directly or indirectly supporting his campaign. (Thus, fundraising expenses and meals for volunteers must be reported as campaign expenditures. BY LAW. Though you don't know much about following the law, so this is pretty foreign to you.) Let's also be clear: He's raised $28,150 in the first reporting period. You've raised less than $500. Again, your intellect is dizzying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthseeker Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Rees et al -- You should stick to lying about things that aren't part of the public record, and things that aren't so easily refutable. A quick look at Sam's report shows that everything you just wrote is inaccurate. 'Out-of-DC contributions, only 1k in Ward 3' Wrong. Well over 1k came from Ward 3. Even a cursory examination of the report shows as much. 'Paying his rent, food with campaign money.' Wrong. He has no payment for rent on his report. He has payed a majority of his expenses to a firm called Momentum Analysis. He has several meals and food/catering expenses (six total) -- he is required by law to list those meals if they're directly or indirectly supporting his campaign. (Thus, fundraising expenses and meals for volunteers must be reported as campaign expenditures. BY LAW. Though you don't know much about following the law, so this is pretty foreign to you.) Let's also be clear: He's raised $28,150 in the first reporting period. You've raised less than $500. Again, your intellect is dizzying. If I neglected to say it before, I'm glad you're here Golden Girl. It's a pleasure to see good critical thinking skills in action. I'm sorry that you have to waste them on this idiocy, but the pursuit of truth is its own reward I guess. Anyway, a belated welcome to you! Thanks for picking up the slack when the rest of us (or me, at least) are growing tired of all this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfrankdc Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 For anyone interested, the official filings can be obtained here: http://ocf.dc.gov/imaging/searchimages.asp As I understand it, the Ward 3 candidates to date are: Robert Gorden Mary Cheh Sam Brooks Cathy Wiss Jonathon Rees 4 of the five listed above filed reports which are available at the posted link. Mr. Rees did not file a report. Further a very cursory examination of the reports shows: -A lot of non-Ward 3 money supporting the campaigns -A lot of professionals (I note the Law School Community in Candidate Cheh's report, but Cheh, Wiss and Brooks all have this kind of support) -Loans from the candidates to the campaign - Nothing untoward or illegal in any of the filings. B. Frank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts