Did Hooley opponent Mike Erickson violate federal law?
Kari Chisholm
It's pretty simple, actually. On April 15, all candidates for Congress were required to file a report of their contributions and expenditures with the FEC.
According to the DPO... Mike Erickson, a Lake Oswego Republican running against Darlene Hooley, filed a report stating that he hadn't raised or spent any money at all.
But here's the thing: He's got a statement in the voter's pamphlet. And to do that, he had to have paid the the Elections Division $1000 by March 9th.
As the DPO points out, it's a stunningly obvious violation of federal law:
By failing to disclose both the source of funds for this campaign expenditure and the $1,000 expenditure itself, Mr. Erickson's campaign committee has violated federal law. Both the Act and Commission regulations require the disclosure of all receipts and disbursements by a federal candidate's principal campaign committee for the relevant reporting period. See 2 U.S.C. § 434(b) and 11 C.F.R. §§ 104.1, 104.3(a)-(b).“There is no justification for Mr. Erikson’s flouting of these disclosure requirements,” said Pender. “It’s amazing how incompetent Republicans when their candidates for Congress can’t follow the most basic rules. This calls into question what other contributions Mr. Erickson failed to disclose to the FEC – or what expenditures his campaign made on his behalf. What else is Mike Erickson hiding or plan to hide from the public?”
What's wrong with these GOP congressional candidates in Oregon? Can't they even follow the most basic rules? What happened to the "rule of law" and all that jazz?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 3, '06
It's a pretty inauspicious start for Mr. Erickson, to be sure. You gotta wonder how a supposedly competent businessman can allow this to happen. Since he's unopposed, he simply could have skipped putting a statement in the Voter's Pamphlet completely.
The other observation to make: I guess Mannix and the state Republican party leaders are too caught up in their own intra-party squabbles (i.e. the Gubernatorial primary) to provide any coaching or direction to their hot, new recruits!
May 3, '06
Hooley's camp would be smart to look into Erickson's company (and see how women are treated), as well as, look into his social life.
12:00 p.m.
May 3, '06
Heckuva campaign, Mikey!
Props to DPO for exposing Erickson's violation.
May 19, '06
Follow up - looking closer at the FEC filings (following the link from the article) it just shows that no fundraising or campaign activities were done during hte 1/1 to 3/31 time period. That very well may have been the case.
I like this web site, and appreciate the cause, but the posters must be more careful. I don't believe the author meant to misrepresent the situation, but it would be good for him to issue a follow up on this article.
May 19, '06
This conclusion assumes that a campaign committee had been formed. Another possibility is that he was so late to join the race that all expenses to that point were paid out of his own pocket. That would represent poor planning, but not an illegal activity.
Please keep the discussion well reasoned.
And Scott... all candidates at this level are put under a fine microscope throughout the campaign. So your suggestion implies that you know something. If so, come out with it!
12:22 p.m.
May 19, '06
Independent -- He'd still have to report it as an in-kind donation to his campaign. Which he didn't.
12:23 p.m.
May 19, '06
it just shows that no fundraising or campaign activities were done during hte 1/1 to 3/31 time period.
It's YOU that's not paying attention. The $1000 check to the Elections Division was due by March 9.
May 19, '06
Kari - I stand corrected on the date of the mentioned expense. I assume you are referring to the voter pamphlet filing deadline. (http://www.sos.state.or.us/elections/may162006/may162006.htm)
I also note that your original post was dated May 2nd, and an additional FEC filing dated the 3rd covers the mentioned money. date (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00422097/) detail (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00422097/215553/sd/10)
Maybe you straighted them out on this issue!