Campaign contributions are limited to $500. We all know that never happens. A quick look at Carlos Gimenez's campaign report shows we have $4,000 from Lobbyist Ron Book and his family ($3,500 over the limit by creative giving -- using corporations and family members):
10 9/28/2007 Patricia Book
10711 Hawks Vista Street
Plantation, FL 3324 Individual Homemaker Check $500.00
11 9/28/2007 Ronald L. Book
10711 Hawks Vista Street
Plantation, FL 33324 Individual Attorney Check $500.00
12 9/28/2007 Governmental Consultants Inc.
2999 Northeast 191 Street
PH 6
Aventura, FL 33180 Business Consultants Check $500.00
13 9/28/2007 Samantha M. Book
10711 Hawks Vista Street
Plantation, FL 33324 Individual Student Check $500.00
14 9/28/2007 Lauren Book
492 Coconut Poll Terr
Plantation, FL 33324 Individual Student Check $500.00
15 9/28/2007 Ronald Book P.A.
2999 N.E. 191 Street
PH 6
Aventura, FL 33180 Business Law Firm Check $500.00
16 9/28/2007 Confection Connection Inc.
16119 Biscayne Boulevard
#28 & 29
North Miami, FL 33179 Business Confection Check $500.00
17 9/28/2007 Gift Scenario Inc.
2999 N.E. 191 Street
PH 6
Aventura, FL 33180 Business Gift Shop Check $500.00
13 comments:
Genius:
With all due respect, those contributions were given in full compliance with the election laws of the State of Florida. There is an individual and corporate max of $500.00 per contributor. Corporations are considered legal entities, and if you have opened several corporations, you can donate $500.00 from each.
The same happens when activist groups hold fundraisers for politicians, the difference is that the connection isn't as readily visible through the reporting requirements.
Now, what you can do is advocate for a change in the statutes that would somehow bar the ability to give multiple checks from multiple corporations, if one individual (or individuals) hold a common thread, however, that is not the law as it currently is written.
I just want to point out that the donations you referenced in your blog are not above the max as you indicated.
god
I agree with the last post...Everything there is legit and according to State Statutes.
legal but hell it stinks! A lot is legal that skirts the intent -- this is one example.
If it is so legit, why do some people stop short? We all know that some developers own over 100 companies and could well afford to give $500 from each. Why don't they? Because it would look bad. Somehow, corporate donors have figured out that they shouldn't go over $5,000 or so... that seems to be the amount that they figure won't raise red flags and outrage from the public....and lead to a change of the law. It wasn't so long ago that corporate donations were not legal in Miami Dade county (thank you Sally Heyman for the change to make them legal). They are not legal in presidential elections.
If this Commissioner is the ethical person that he says he is, he should return the money...It may be legal but it isn't ethical
Look, at the end of the day, it is entirely ethical. Look, it is reported for all to see an scrutinize. This Commissioner has voted against major donors several times. Go out and talk to those in the business. They will tell you that what they have with him is an opportunity to make their case, but, at the end of the day, he will base his decision on what he believes is best for the County, sometimes that means he votes with them, and other times, he votes against them. The question is not how much money do you accept, it is are you going to compromise your opinion because of the money that is accepted.
Because I post this is to put it out in front of people.
In this post I just included a list. If that list appears to be questionable to any of you...so be it. This is all I said in the post and it is all true:
Campaign contributions are limited to $500. We all know that never happens. A quick look at Carlos Gimenez's campaign report shows we have $4,000 from Lobbyist Ron Book and his family ($3,500 over the limit by creative giving -- using corporations and family members):
I have no problem with your posting this or that of any other Commissioner. This is the reality of what occurs. It just seems that for some of the individuals who post comments, the issue is personal, perhaps you are receiving comments from Carlos or his staff?
Yes, staff members, here is some advice: chill. You are not going to get your way on this blog 100% of the time, everyone is fair game, just be happy you are not working for Natacha or Joe Martinez.
I don't work for any one of them, and don't work anywhere near government, I just like keeping tabs on what is going on. If you notice, I only defended the Commissioner when one of the posters indicated he was unethical. I know the man, and that comment is just plain wrong.
My overriding point is that there was nothing creative about what Ron Book did here. It is legal and ethical. I defended it when you mentioned the same thing about Martinez's campaign account, and you and I both know, Martinez is ethically challenged. That is not the point though. The rules allow single $500.00 donations from individuals and individual corporate entites.
At the end of the day, the reality is that you need money to run a campaign, whether it be local, state or federal. As such, the relevant question is not how much these politicians take in, and who they are getting it from, rather, the question is are these politicians voting based on the donations to their campaigns, or based on what they believe to be in the interest of their constituents. That's my point.
The contribution presumably listed on the Gimenez campaign finance report from "Business Consultants Inc." is intriguing. Three companies with that name have been registered in Florida over the years; all, however, are in inactive status. It's a fairly safe conclusion that NO entity with that precise legal name at any address wrote a $500 check to anyone.
However, there IS an active corporation named "Ronald L. Book Governmental Consultants Inc." at a familiar Aventura address. Which begs the obvious question: Why was the "person" part of the corporate name deleted, apparently BY THE GIMENEZ campaign, when it prepared and submitted its contribution report as to that check? Perhaps the "person" part of the corporate entity was not printed on the actual check (charitable thought).
Or, perhaps, it was an application of creative camouflage, er, editing? Otherwise known as "deletion of that part of the contributor's full name in order to avoid further embarrassment."
P.S. Is it not a crime at some moral or technical level or both to "mask" the TRUE IDENTITY of a campaign contribution? Masking can by by how a contributor prints his checks or how a recipient reports his contributions, eh?
You guys are all nuts. I've seen Gimenez pimp slap a ton of Ron Book's clients.
Advertisers...Slap
Bombardier...Slap
and on and on
The guy is easily in the top teir of upstanding public officials.
If only he didn't make every issue into a fight for the moral soul of the county.
moderate
i agree that Gimenez is straight up not a moderate, however, this is more about ron book don't you think -- do we really think his kids are making contributions? You would think he would leave his kids out of his wheeling and dealing.
Isn't it more about a really shitty system of campaign contributions? I could have picked out any commissioner and found the same crap. Just because I picked Gimenez does not mean it is ONLY him. So everyone stop your complaining about the commissioner and focus on what I was focused on: people massaging the campaign finance rules to gain the favor of commissioners.
Post a Comment