Well, he is certainly off to a good start judging by his Campaign Finance Reports. Despite advisory statements from the Missouri Ethics Commission, he still continues to take illegal, over-the-limit contributions.
Here is a copy of Schneider's 30-day post-election report, so that you can follow along. Contributions are on pages 5 and 6.
1. Ann Scott contributed a whopping $2,000.00!!! That is more than 6 times the legal limit of $325 per election! Who is Ann Scott and what does this Clayton resident hope to gain from Overland?
2. Bob Ortmann gave another$200.00. This brings his total contribution for this election to $500.00. This is $175.00 above the legal limits.
3. Cliffords Big Signs contributed $400.00. It's not as if that big sign rolling though Overland wasn't the laugh of the city (jaundiced candidate and all) but now we see it was also ILLEGAL!!
What are your thoughts?
28 comments:
And just so folks don't cry BIAS, here is MBC's report. I didn't really highlight it since all of her contributions are within the legal limits.
A little birdie told me that COGG's Jan Rahn was at the Election Board picking up reports.
Does this mean that COGG will file complaints and actually stand for "good government"?
Oh wait...Rahn is MT Schneider's deputy treasurer. She was probably seeing what kind of trouble she has gotten herself into!
Ann Scott is Hugh Scott's wife. You would think with their experience they would have known better.
Hugh Scott, III was appointed by Missouri Governor Matt Blunt in April 2005 to serve on Metro's Board of Commissioners. Scott is Vice President and Managing Director of Investment Banking at Stifel Nicolaus & Co. Prior to Stifel Nicolaus & Co., Scott was employed for seven years as the Secretary and Principal for Iota Group, Inc. and sixteen years as Chairman and CEO for Western Diesel Services, Inc. Scott has served on the Board of Directors for many organizations including U.S. Bank of St. Louis, Boatmen's Trust Company, and the New England Mutual Life Insurance Company. He has also provided service to the metropolitan area as Vice-Chairman for the St. Louis Regional Chamber & Growth Association. As a St. Louis County resident, Scott was Alderman for the City of Clayton and Finance Vice-Chairman for the Missouri Republican Party of St. Louis County. In addition, Scott was Mayor for the City of Clayton from 1987 to 1991. He holds a B.A. degree from Yale University
Oh that Scott.
You know, she is listed as a "homemaker" but is giving tons of money to politicians, per MEC website
I gotta get me one of those kinds of jobs as it must pay well.
Excuse my stating the obvious but:
Looking at the advisory from the Missouri Ethics Commission it suggests that contributions received after the July 19th, 2007 MO. Supreme Court decision should not exceed the legal limits (in this case $325.00).
However, the Schneider campaign filing, dated August 13th 2007, shows the contribution from Ann Scott was received on July 27th, 2007.
Last I knew, the Supreme Court had not ruled as to whether or not contributions made prior to this ruling would be subject to the same limits. However, ones made after the ruling clearly are. That begs the question: why was this contribution accepted?
Is it possible that the Schneider campaign mistakenly considered itself to be a political party committee and thus subject to the $3,250.00 limit, rather than the $325.00 limit?
If that's their thinking they're in error. The Missouri Ethics Commission web site lists the definitions of each type of committee and in the case of a political party committee they defer to RSMo. 115.603 to define what a political party is. That statute refers to "established" political parties. Item number 10 of RSMo. 115.013 clearly defines an "established political party" as:
"Established political party" for the state, a political party which, at either of the last two general elections, polled for its candidate for any statewide office, more than two percent of the entire vote cast for the office. "Established political party" for any district or political subdivision shall mean a political party which polled more than two percent of the entire vote cast at either of the last two elections in which the district or political subdivision voted as a unit for the election of officers or representatives to serve its area;
It seems quite clear that the Committee to Elect Mike Schneider in no way qualifies as a political party committee.
There maybe legal precedent here that changes these statutes to a degree (I didn't make another trip down to the County Law Library to find out). Barring that unlikely possibility it seems clear that there is no alternative to the $325.00 limit when running for the office of Mayor of Overland, Missouri.
FineWine You're going to have to provide a link or at least an internet address to the post you reference. All I've seen is Gravy stating that he would stopping calling people liars when they stop lying which seems far from unreasonable to me. I still have not seen any evidence of any action taken by anyone in our little Overland online community that would violate stalking laws.
Judging by who Ann Scott support's the very worst Governor in Missouri's history it's not surprising whom she back for Mayor of the affluent city of Overland, Missouri.
It's amazing how many seats on Governor appointed boards 25,000 will buy you.
Sailor,
Maybe I understood incorrectly, but I interpreted the "political party" thing to be maximums that the political parties could donate to candidates.
For example: If the Democrat or Republican party wanted to donate to a local candidate.
I'll have to read that again.
Thanks for the support mates.
But FineWine makes a few good points. I was being too general Liars can be decent people. The two are not mutually exclusive.
So I apologize to FineWine for calling her defenseless ....... friend ........ a liar.
I hope you accept my apology so that we can put this behind us and I can get back to good old fashion surveillance.
SuzyJax you could be right. I read it as contributions to the party. However, a look at it is again and I can see it your way as well. Either way the contribution is clearly over the limit.
FineWine I honestly could care less who you are in person. I never suggested you were MN and honestly I could care if you were. Regardless of who you are in life, when you publicly post inaccurate information people are going to call you on it.
I asked you for a link to the post you referenced, you provided none. I asked for specifics when it comes to your claims of stalking law violations and the like. You provide nothing but more blanket statements and what appears to be purposefully non-specific accusations.
When you post something I feel is inaccurate I generally respond, referencing your screen name and asking you to back up what you say. More often then not you fail to do that, as you have failed to do once again on this issue.
I find it hard to understand why I should take you seriously when you repeatedly employ these smear-like tactics. If you truly prefer intelligent, fact-based discussions as you claim, then perhaps you should try it yourself.
Mr. Gravy, Fine eyes, blue wine whomever are thorns in your side (and mine), because they are not astute, and simple minded, and apparently only care about who is sociable with them, and allows them hang with "important" people.
I realize a simple answer to a complex problem. Far as I can determine Gravy, you are none of the above.
The problem I have they are not alone, and apparently vote.
Gravy, Would you please tell me what “Sunshine Soldiering“ which is your stated occupation translates too?
I do not intend to comment on anything you do, you are not an elected official, basically I just wanted a little background, of where forth your outspoken views come.
It strikes me you have it right in your postings!
As usual, You all have the contributions ethics right, and I mean to ask Mike, if given the chance.
I was told, again by reliable sources, who happen to be Schneider supporters, that MBC was against any raises for OPD?
I am for raises across the all ranks, because we are doing nothing but training qualified good officers that go elsewhere for a career with a higher paying department.
I happen to believe it is the right thing to do, the moral thing to pay these people closer to what they are worth to us, and to the public sector.
What say you closer observers than I?
I have spoke with MBC on a wide variety of Overland-related subjects. I have also read and watched her campaign materials and events. Never, ever have I heard her mention that she didn't want raises for any Overland rank-and-file employee, let alone the police department.
Per usual, MT Schneider supporters realize they have supported an EMPTY candidate and still try to discredit the most capable person to ever serve on the city council.
Ghostbuster,
The raise for the police officers is a topic I happen to know about. MBC supported a raise for the Police Officers, no ifs and or buts about it. She wanted raised for the rank and file officers and told me before it became common knowledge she wanted to give the officers the thousand dollar raise in addition to the step increases.
Had she not thought this I would have dropped her like a hot potatoe.
I like you, heard the same rumors, when traced back to the origin they turned out to have came from the administator of the PD and the City. Just a typical lie spread by those who realized she wouldn't play ball with them. When I informed her of the rumors she was beyond pissed, but wrote it off to who stood to gain by it.
I beleive that she had the support of the rank and file of the City Workers. This is from conversation I've with workers in several different departments.
I'm also convinced the rumors will continue, she'll be bad mouthed, a couple of years ago they accused her of vile conducted. Will it end, I sincerely doubt it.
Ghostbuster As others have already said MaryBeth Conlon never opposed raises for our police officers.
I have discussed this subject with her personally on more than one occasion and can say without hesitation that she has great respect for the officers and wants to see them properly compensated for the good work they do.
When hearing things like this I always find it is best to go straight to the person in question. I tend to hear several dozen rumors a week, but when I contact the subjects of those rumors I nearly always find that the truth and the rumor are not on speaking terms.
Just out of curiosity how does anyone know if candidates are reporting everything they receive. Is there a way to verify what they've gotten or reported or is it all done on good faith that they will.
Onelayer, the reporting is done on good faith to a certain extent.
For example, Keller claimed she was not spending over $1000 (or some amount) and did not file any reports. The Ethics Commission and/or St Louis County Election Board can ask to see her books to prove such.
The same with those who do report. Let's say you knew that XYZ candidate had a small BBQ fundraiser. Yet, there seems to be no listing of it anywhere on the disclosure forms. One could use this as reasoning for Ethics and/or County Board to review their books, including checking account statements.
Sorry, what about cash donations?
"where forth your outspoken views come."
Ghostbuster,
That is a bit meta-physical for my tastes, but I assure you my opinions come from the same process as your: family, socialization, education, experience and opportunities.
"Sunshine Soldiering" translates to a cheap shot at talk show host Crane Durham. I come from a long line of peasant shepherds and dirt farmers but am currently employed as a Shaolin Monk.
I hope that helps. Curiously,why does it matter too you?
Onelayer,
There are two types of contributions. In-Kind (eg. XYZ Printing donates yard signs) or monetary. All monetary donations above $100 must be itemized on the list.
If someone has a fundraiser, they should only be taking checks. However, any donation (cash, check, money order) above $25 the candidate should be getting all pertinent information. OR, in other words, no anonymous donations above $25 are allowed.
There are rules behind this that the MEC has links. I'll find them and post it. (Cuz there is a lot of If this then that--or if that then this.)
Here is basic fundraising information from the MEC.
Some tips on reporting, can be found in this Treasurer's Guide also from the MEC.
Onelayer,
Usually it is obvious when there are cash contributions that don't match up to expenditures.
For example, one receives three mailings but only one is listed on the report.
Another example is Candidate A and B have about the same number of signs. Both with union bug. Candidate A only pays 1/2 of what B did without any "in kind" donation listing.
These examples might raise eyebrows and kick-off an audit by either MEC or County Elec Board.
I wonder if Buck Collier is going to be getting the scoop on this story.
I think you mean Pulitzer, err Bullshitzer Award Winning Journalist Buck Collins.
Again, thank you
To Gravy,
Meta-physical?
What s this, an exercise in my Funk n Wagnall?
Is everyone gay here? Is that the secret I don’t get? You all seem to like a lot of gay themed entertainment venues, in your blogs.
I could give a rat’s ass, if you like insect pornography.
Do I care? Don’t ask, and I won’t tell. Do you care what I think, you shouldn’t, as it
not relative to the posts being made here.
Gravy, to explain, my “family” real quick, - don’t got no education.
However I admire them more than every one here, not because of that, but in spite of that! I admired them for their honesty character, integrity, and principle, which is much more important that your ability and throw big words around, or to communicate utilizing correctly, (I can only assume), the “King’s English.
Without fail I concur with what I interpret you are conveying in my simple Overland “Hoosier” mindset, and my limited proper education, and your 10 cent words.
I do not have any idea what “shoaling Monk” means, ( intend no research),and give a rats ass, and now realize I don’t need to know.
I ask with all do courtesy of an admirer of your view, your ability to express it.
I was especially impressed with you cutting remarks, and comeback to the Purzner crowd, who I know, as does the entire metro area at least, as an embarrassment and idiots they proved to be, and in fact were always , and will be till they pass. Maybe as they go to next life then will be enlightened, but ain’t happening in this one, and when they sneak in to our city hall it is requirement of we the citizens to speak out.
Owensby the gun runner, and the Overland King of Sleaze, Downtown Brown require the sharp tongue of people as yourself, and the mainstay here Suzyjax, with her skills as a contributor of substantiated facts, and a expedient refutation of the half truths, lies and innuendos presented.
I have just had conversation with and a few brews with His Honor, Mayor Schneider the American Legion where we both members, and well tell you he is well and good, and I like him, and respect him, as I am certain most if not all do there.
I feel that the former administrations had their hanger on‘s, and for lack of a better word, groupies, with people that wanted to be close to the mayor, Mike isn’t like that, and if anyone knows me a little, I am the direct opposite so that isn’t what this about.
I also will tell you in my humble opinion he is personable, knowledgeable, astute, humble and qualified to be mayor.
I also ask the question, probably rude but not meant to be, why did these contributors
gave to him over the limits as you “smarter” people have laid out here.
He told me the lady from Clayton that the gave the money was an long ago employer of his, that gives to a variety of people, for a variety of causes, and reasons as others have.
He did not blink, but said he had heard that, and if so, ( he didn’t know”) his friends didn’t know, he would give it back if you here are correct in your accusations.
I think you are combing the fine hairs because your choice, and mine, didn’t get elected.
He said he made every donation clear in his declaration, and it is up to others to make that call, and thus far no-one with proper authority has.
He says he isn’t concerned because he didn’t intend to do anything illegal, and is not been told he has.
I agree with that assessment, because you “can‘t become a statesman without being a politician, and you can‘t become a politician in America, without - unfortunately soliciting funds.. It appears to me that the best money solicitor gets elected a majority of the time and that has no relation to the best candidate.
I don’t like it, you don’t like it, I suggest we all get together and change the business of politics, instead of changing Mike, at least at this time.
I am convinced, Mike is certainly not the most unethical mayor ever occupied city hall, I believe without doubt that honor goes to Ms. Purzner followed by many others, and others but as we know two wrongs, (or more) don’t make a right!.
We will see.
You here with all you internet and communication skills, your 25 cent words, and your obvious higher than the average bear’s IQ, have not convinced me to do anything but hope for the best, and Mike is our mayor, like it or not, do something advantageous, for him, and therefore for us,.
I have not concluded as you have, that any trust in our mayor has been betrayed.
I have repeated often I voted for MBC, but Mr. Schneider is the mayor, and from my vantage point, and my personal embedded morality, I know of nothing to make me question his ethics at this time.
Ghost,
I am sure that Mike is a nice and sincere gentleman. (Although that nice has never been directed at me.) What kind of salesman is not?
However, I find his statement that as long as he declared the contributions he is in the clear a bit ludicrous. I will buy that he doesn't understand campaign finance law and the changes that happend during the campaign. It is hard for the layman to understand. But, once you register to run you are no longer a layman and need to familiarize yourself with the rules and regulations--along with changes along the way.
Someone once said "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." However, I will accept that, I just don't think the MEC will.
--SJ
P.S. I guess I had an unfair advantage because I had been following this law since the state legislature tried to mess around with it resulting in the lawsuits that followed. My interest went beyond Overland but to all races where fundraising seems to require too much time of our leaders/politicians.
Well said as usual, and take no exception, I repeat, we'll see.
Post a Comment