Are YellowDog.com (and Jennifer Weiss) breaking the law?

[DarylB]

I posted this piece under the "Eric Weaver" announcement, but it begs a serious question I've posed.... are YellowDog.com, and Jennifer Weiss braking the law here?


... and yet another question...

In perusing Jennifer Weiss's website, I noticed that she uses the "Wake Up Yellow Dogs" to maintain her website. Further, the "Head Yellow Dog", Linda Watson, advertises, "Cut your ongoing support costs by prepaying for blocks of time. Special low rates for progressive candidates or causes".. I'm not certain of this, but isn't a public business discriminating in its pricing policies based upon political affiliation an illegal practice?

Does the following apply?

The Clayton Antitrust Act (1914)
The Clayton Antitrust Act is comprised of §§ 12, 13, 14-19, 20, 21, 22-27 of Title 15.

Some sections have been edited or eliminated because of space concerns.

Note also that §§ 13a, 13b, and 21a comprise the "Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act" (1936). Sections 15c-15h, and 18a compromise part of the "Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976."

Sec. 13. Discrimination in price, services, or facilities (§ 2 of the Clayton Act)
(a) Price; selection of customers
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall prevent differentials which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered: Provided, however, That the Federal Trade Commission may, after due investigation and hearing to all interested parties, fix and establish quantity limits, and revise the same as it finds necessary, as to particular commodities or classes of commodities, where it finds that available purchasers in greater quantities are so few as to render differentials on account thereof unjustly discriminatory or promotive of monopoly in any line of commerce; and the foregoing shall then not be construed to permit differentials based on differences in quantities greater than those so fixed and established: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent persons engaged in selling goods, wares, or merchandise in commerce from selecting their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade: And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall prevent price changes from time to time where in response to changing conditions affecting the market for or the marketability of the goods concerned, such as but not limited to actual or imminent deterioration of perishable goods, obsolescence of seasonal goods, distress sales under court process, or sales in good faith in discontinuance of business in the goods concerned."

[skip]

(e) Furnishing services or facilities for processing, handling, etc.
It shall be unlawful for any person to discriminate in favor of one purchaser against another purchaser or purchasers of a commodity bought for resale, with or without processing, by contracting to furnish or furnishing, or by contributing to the furnishing of, any services or facilities connected with the processing, handling, sale, or offering for sale of such commodity so purchased upon terms not accorded to all purchasers on proportionally equal terms.
(f) Knowingly inducing or receiving discriminatory price
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.


http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/statutes/clayton.html

[Wuptdo]

Darylb -- as you aware, the chances of finding "justice" in North Carolina from either the Wake County DA or the State Attorney General is about nil, unless of course, Ms. Weiss were a Republican. There, I recommend you make this into a e-mail and forward to good people of U.S. Attorney Office, Eastern District. These are the good people whom introduced Uncle Jim Black, and a few others, to the joys of prison.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nce/

Wouldn't it be great if North Carolina Justice System was independent of politics. Image all those politicians that instead of Jones Street, would be doing hard time at Central Prison. Dare to dream.

[DarylB]

Seems that there may be some discussion on this, as at least one poll result is that the law wasn't broken. Could we ask for clarity on this, ie if you have an opinion, on what basis have you come to your conclusions?

As for myself, I felt it was quite compelling that the Clayton anti-trust law specifies "It shall be unlawful for any person to discriminate in favor of one purchaser against another". Seemed pretty clear cut to me.

[Brent]

I don't know about "antitrust", but I do know that NC Campaign Finance law states that if a business offers a service to any particular candidate for a particular price, then they also need to offer that same service to other candidates for the same price.

Most people don't know this, most businesses don't know this, and I don't know that anyone has ever "called" anyone else on it.

[DarylB]

I don't know about "antitrust", but I do know that NC Campaign Finance law states that if a business offers a service to any particular candidate for a particular price, then they also need to offer that same service to other candidates for the same price.

Most people don't know this, most businesses don't know this, and I don't know that anyone has ever "called" anyone else on it.

You don't happen to know more specifics as to where this information can be found, perchance? I can continue to prowl, I doubt the N&O reporters and diggers could much care, even if there was another Jim Black story about to break. I can check with the board of elections if you don't have the reference on this. I just wonder how much this has been worth (ie the potential for a "bottomless" campaign fund), and if there are other such "financial workarounds" afoot that have been circumventing campaign finance laws, and for how long it has been in place.... seems like it could easily be a bit of a rabbit hole to campaign finance corruption. Stay tuned....

[DarylB]

Time to revisit an issue, since MattD decided to brink up equal opportunity advertising in politics.




Not officially a member of the Republican Party? There is a free ad for McCain and I've started noticing a Western Wake Republican ad... Okay, you may not be "official" but you aren't foolin' us into thinking you are not a Republican. (and there is nothing wrong with that).


In perusing Jennifer Weiss's website, I noticed that she uses the "Wake Up Yellow Dogs" to maintain her website. Further, the "Head Yellow Dog", Linda Watson, advertises, "Cut your ongoing support costs by prepaying for blocks of time. Special low rates for progressive candidates or causes".. I'm not certain of this, but isn't a public business discriminating in its pricing policies based upon political affiliation an illegal practice?


I never really got my answer full answer about YellowDog.com.... is this just another ACORN from the Democratic tree of political corruption??

Dems, have you done anything about Jennifer Weiss/YellowDog.com since February, or is the angst over political advertising fairness just the "umbrage d'jour"?

Daryl, out.......

[MattD]

Time to revisit an issue, since MattD decided to brink up equal opportunity advertising in politics.




Not officially a member of the Republican Party? There is a free ad for McCain and I've started noticing a Western Wake Republican ad... Okay, you may not be "official" but you aren't foolin' us into thinking you are not a Republican. (and there is nothing wrong with that).


In perusing Jennifer Weiss's website, I noticed that she uses the "Wake Up Yellow Dogs" to maintain her website. Further, the "Head Yellow Dog", Linda Watson, advertises, "Cut your ongoing support costs by prepaying for blocks of time. Special low rates for progressive candidates or causes".. I'm not certain of this, but isn't a public business discriminating in its pricing policies based upon political affiliation an illegal practice?


I never really got my answer full answer about YellowDog.com.... is this just another ACORN from the Democratic tree of political corruption??

Dems, have you done anything about Jennifer Weiss/YellowDog.com since February, or is the angst over political advertising fairness just the "umbrage d'jour"?

Daryl, out.......

Not sure how an ad on CP is related to this... but nonetheless.

DB, if you have a true concern about this I would suggest contacting the appropriate people. If there is indeed something unethical about this, then forward the issue to people who can do something about it.

[Laurie]

I didn't see anything about Wake Up Yellow Dogs on her website. But if they are offering discounts to select candidates, it would seem that they are breaking NC campaign finance law. If Jennifer Weiss knew she was getting a discount, then the discount might be considered an in-kind contribution, and it is illegal for a business to contribute to political campaigns.

One snippet from the NC Campaign Finance Manual:

§ 163-278.18. Normal commercial charges for political advertising.
(a) No media and no supplier of materials or services shall charge or require a
candidate, treasurer, political party, or individual to pay a charge for advertising,
materials, space, or services purchased for or in support of or in opposition to any
candidate, political committee, or political party that is higher than the normal charge it
requires other customers to pay for comparable advertising, materials, space, or services
purchased for other purposes.
(b) A newspaper, magazine, or other advertising medium shall not charge any
candidate, treasurer, political committee, political party, or individual for any advertising
for or in support of or in opposition to any candidate, political committee or political
party at a rate higher than the comparable rate charged to other persons for advertising of
comparable frequency and volume; and every candidate, treasurer, political party or
individual, with respect to political advertising, shall be entitled to the same discounts
afforded by the advertising medium to other advertisers under comparable conditions and
circumstances. (1973, c. 1272, s. 1; 1977, c. 856.)

[johnshaw]

I don't see anything on the Wake Up Yellow Dogs site http://www.wakeupyellowdogs.com/ now concerning rates for particular political persuasions or parties.

[Laurie]

I also don't see any mention of discounts on the wakeupyellowdogs website. Where are they doing this advertising that was mentioned?

[Brent]

I don't see anything on that site either. Perhaps it's removed or advertised in some other medium?

Aside: wakeupyellowdogs.com, in my opinion, might have the worst/most primitive Web site I've seen of anyone purporting to do Web site design. Their own Web site isn't a good advertisement for their services, if you ask me.

[DarylB]

I don't see anything on that site either. Perhaps it's removed or advertised in some other medium?

Aside: wakeupyellowdogs.com, in my opinion, might have the worst/most primitive Web site I've seen of anyone purporting to do Web site design. Their own Web site isn't a good advertisement for their services, if you ask me.

Odd, isn't it? That original posting about "special rates for progressive candidates" was a direct cut and paste from the original YellowDog.com website. Jennifer Weiss USED to have an acknowledgment for their services on her website, which is how I followed this thread in the first place. It too is gone. All tracks seem to have disappeared, and been covered behind them. Now folks, I'm not a reporter or anything close, but it begs the question, are there ANY REPORTERS at all curious about this, seeing as how we have a history of bathroom/backroom funding habits among our local politicians, especially with the legacy of Jim Black, with his secrets resting quietly in his head as he sleeps comfortably in his cell. He's had a lot of company in his past illegalities, but he doesn't have a lot of company at the moment, and one has to ask ......... Any junior Woodward and Bernsteins in the audience?

There are certainly financial records filed with campaigns, and business records that could be obtained if they lead to a rabbit hole. If I'm wrong on this one, I'll shut up, but at present, it doesn't seem like the quietly coordinated changes lend themselves to the smell test of an innocent, above board business here. The website now is in fact pretty crappy, as Brent noted, and while it wasn't great before, that too seems to be the result of a rapid change, and one has to ask why, when their business is supposed to be creating professional web work? Was it something I said?

[MattD]

REPOSTING:


DB, if you have a true concern about this I would suggest contacting the appropriate people. If there is indeed something unethical about this, then forward the issue to people who can do something about it.

DB - If you are really concerned then do something a file an ethics complaint. And if it is true, I think you will find many supporters backing you up... Otherwise, it would appear you are more interested in throwing fire bombs at the innocent. I'm sure someone with your talent/knowledge of the Internet could quickly find the correct person to file a complaint.

For the record, I don't think Rep Weiss has done anything wrong. And since I cannot prove a "negative", then it is incumbent upon the person making this charge to either show evidence or - at a minimum -file the appropriate grievance.

[DarylB]

REPOSTING:


DB, if you have a true concern about this I would suggest contacting the appropriate people. If there is indeed something unethical about this, then forward the issue to people who can do something about it.

DB - If you are really concerned then do something a file an ethics complaint. And if it is true, I think you will find many supporters backing you up... Otherwise, it would appear you are more interested in throwing fire bombs at the innocent. I'm sure someone with your talent/knowledge of the Internet could quickly find the correct person to file a complaint.

For the record, I don't think Rep Weiss has done anything wrong. And since I cannot prove a "negative", then it is incumbent upon the person making this charge to either show evidence or - at a minimum -file the appropriate grievance.

You may not be able to prove a negative, but what we have here is a series of positive facts, easily proven. It would be one thing if I tought that an ethics investigation had some meaning... seems to me it's a bit like badly needed eminent domain legislation being sent to committee. Besides this is not just an ethical violation, it is a legal infraction.

No, I think what's already obvious, and exist as the now know facts are the following:

1) Jennifer Weiss used and acknowledged the use of YellowDog.com for political advertising,
2) YellowDog.com advertised for, and accepted work for progressive candidates at a rate unavailable to other candidates,
3) Both the website for Jennifer Weiss and for YellowDog.com have changed, in light of the exposure,
4) and finally, it has been duly noted that such activity is in violation of the existing campaign laws.

What do I expect should be done?

1) I think both YellowDog (Linda Watson), and Jennifer Weiss, need to come clean to the fact that they were engaged in an illegal and mutually agreed upon advertising venture
2) I think Linda Watson needs to publicly acknowledge those other candidates who took advantage of the illegl activity, and which are contained in her business records as required by the IRS, that is to say the extent of her involvements with Democratic advertising kickbacks/underpricing
3) the BoE needs to take appropriate action, as well as impose whatever legal remedies are available for the support of the law, as Laurie has identified and presented it in a previous posting.

We need transparent government, and representatives that understand and comply with the laws, not just make them up for the rest of us. No, I don't think it's really going to get solved by an ethics charge, (this is after all a violation of a legal staute), any more than I feel Stan's call for an ethics policy against Ken Gardner was the answer to that SNAFU. As for my own take on this, it's probably better from where I sit to simply put the facts before the voters, the BoE, and the Weaver campaign, and let THEM decide, in additon to ensuring businesses who violate the law change their business practices, and repay any ill gotten gains, plus any legal penalties. Yes, I think there may be a financial repayment due from this/these candidates. I don't know what the Weaver campaign may want to do with this information, but it is certainly something if I were him that I'd want to ensure was in the sphere of public knowledge, so voters can make an informed choice at the ballot box.

[Laurie]

No, I think what's already obvious, and exist as the now know facts are the following:


What facts? Did you get screen shots of these websites? (ALWAYS get screen shots!) Did anyone but you see these things? What are you going to take to anyone for them to follow up on this? I can't see how Jennifer Weiss has done anything wrong. She might have picked the wrong company to run her website, but that's not against the law. And what proof do you have that wakeupyellowdogs has broken the law? Seems to be a missed opportunity.

[DarylB]

No, I think what's already obvious, and exist as the now know facts are the following:


What facts? Did you get screen shots of these websites? (ALWAYS get screen shots!) Did anyone but you see these things? What are you going to take to anyone for them to follow up on this? I can't see how Jennifer Weiss has done anything wrong. She might have picked the wrong company to run her website, but that's not against the law. And what proof do you have that wakeupyellowdogs has broken the law? Seems to be a missed opportunity.

The web is public, and of course those screen shots were captured, and are available. More telling though are the business records, which clearly will show the different rates charged for customers based on their political affiliations. That's illegal, and that's where the teeth in this are to be found. To be sure, changing your webiste is one thing, but changing those records would also involve the associated taxes from her business, and that's where the IRS comes in.

[johnshaw]

More telling though are the business records, which clearly will show the different rates charged for customers based on their political affiliations.

Do you have copies of these business records?

[Laurie]

...those screen shots were captured, and are available.

Where? Still only have your word on this.


More telling though are the business records, which clearly will show the different rates charged for customers based on their political affiliations.

Have you seen the business records? Do you know that candidates have been charged differently? Or was this a business ignorant of campaign finance law supposedly offering a discount to certain candidates? Jennifer Weiss is the only candidate listed on their website with the examples of their work.

And it seems that if they were offering certain candidates discounts, they have since learned not to. But there is still no proof of them having done that.

[dhyatt]

The website as of June 9th. 2007 can be viewed here courtesy of the wayback machine at archive.org:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070609164617/http://www.wakeupyellowdogs.com/

The page contains the following two relevant quotes:

Representative Jennifer Weiss: weissforhouse.com (http://web.archive.org/web/20070609164617/http://www.weissforhouse.com/). We're delighted to have done Representative Weiss's site for the second campaign season in a row. Her website design is based around an existing star-and-stripes logo. Notice the photograph (http://web.archive.org/web/20070609164617/http://www.weissforhouse.com/photos.htm) of Representative Weiss filing for office. Take Wake Up Yellow Dogs with you to events to capture the moment.
Special low rates for progressive candidates or causes and for members of Raleigh Unchained.There appears to be little doubt wakeupyellowdogs was in violation of the law. Whether or not Rep. Weiss took advantage of the 'Special low rates' remains to be proven but I'd have to say it's pretty likely.

[Laurie]

The website as of June 9th. 2007 can be viewed here courtesy of the wayback machine at archive.org:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070609164617/http://www.wakeupyellowdogs.com/

Thanks for this. Talk is cheap.


There appears to be little doubt wakeupyellowdogs was in violation of the law. Whether or not Rep. Weiss took advantage of the 'Special low rates' remains to be proven but I'd have to say it's pretty likely.

Unless candidates were actually charged or quoted different prices, and there is no proof of that, was the law broken? I can't imagine why anyone would do business with a company called wakeupyellowdogs. Not going to get many crossover votes that way. Why is Jennifer Weiss still allowing her site to be used as an example? wakeupyellowdogs reached out to the Republican party? That's just funny.

[DarylB]

Don, thanks for doing the legwork of posting the incriminating previous website ....and now that we've gotten past that portion of the evidenciary discovery phase, it also seems that the attempt to cover it up is becoming a bit of a Watergate, don't you think? Illegal political websites of high-profile politicians and political activists going down and/or changing all at once, in unison seem a little weird to anyone....???

My own feeling is that the Watergate period in our history should have taught us something. Rep. Weiss, and Linda Watson should do the right thing now at this point, instead of setting off on a cover-up. It just makes the truth that much more painful to expose, and the damage done that much more ... well, damaging. Does anyone really need to undergo a "YellowDog-Gate" to get things righted here?

To Laurie's question, Yes, those records do exist, as they are required to be maintained for any business. And yes, they are available. Or, perhaps I just need to publish what we know so far, along with what we have evidence for, in a LOE, so as to inform the public in time for election day?

MattD, you said earlier "...if it is true, I think you will find many supporters backing you up".... , so are you now ready to back me up?

[Laurie]

Or, perhaps I just need to publish what we know so far, along with what we have evidence for, in a LOE, so as to inform the public in time for election day?


You still don't have anything. An offer was made on a website. They found out they couldn't make that offer and removed it. You don't know that any candidate was charged or quoted differently than any other one was. You jump to a lot of conclusions but have no proof. No official agency is going to check wakeupyellowdogs business records with nothing to go on. And if you make allegations in a LTE, you can get your arse sued. Don't be counting on anyone backing you up with the nothing of proof you have.

[MattD]

MattD, you said earlier "...if it is true, I think you will find many supporters backing you up".... , so are you now ready to back me up?

DB - I agree with Laurie that you still haven't proven anything. For the third (and final) time, if you think you have enough evidence of an ethics violation, then go to the ethics board and file a charge.

[DarylB]

MattD, you said earlier "...if it is true, I think you will find many supporters backing you up".... , so are you now ready to back me up?

DB - I agree with Laurie that you still haven't proven anything. For the third (and final) time, if you think you have enough evidence of an ethics violation, then go to the ethics board and file a charge.

Your juxtaposed positions, apathy on the one hand for Democratic criminal (not just ethical) activity on the part of Linda Watson and Jennifer Weiss, vs the somewhat more animated support for calls advocating the resignation of Kenn Gardner in support of Stan Norwalk for what you see as an ethical (though not criminal) violation, is dutifully noted. This is not the "final time" I will speak on or document this situation, and if you had an honest answer to the questions I've raised, you too would be questioning this corruption. Your angst is quite openly ideologically selective. Instead of being a part of the solution to the problem of corruption, you instead are now choosing to be a part of the problem. I've shown reasonable cause, up to this point, to suspect that both ethical and illegal activity has taken place, and you have made the purposeful and public choice to dig in your heels and come down on the side of the obstruction of justice. I find that, in the past, I have tended to disagree with many of your opinions, while agreeing with some as well, but I have generally had high respect for your integrity. It's sad that you have chosen to throw integrity aside in this case in favor of ideology. That's not something I would choose to do. I would always hope that my honesty and integrity will be something that places country above parisanship. The receipts showing duplicitous charges exist, but are yet to be published in this forum. You know some of these people who have used these services, but choose to do nothing. I hope that when the facts are clearly presented, that you can continue to say you acted as you did for the right reasons. I think you know in your heart what the right thing to do is, and I can only hope you'll recover that moral, ethical, and legal compass I know you possess. In short, I hope that someone like yourself, who has worked to be a good and articulate spokesman for your point of view, doesn't end up in an embarrassing postition by having chosen your path unwisely.

[Brent]

Daryl, I don't claim to speak for Matt (although I will vouch for his integrity), but I think his (and Laurie's) point was that you don't need to convince us; if you want to pursue this, you should take the information to the Board of Elections.

My guess is that they would conclude what Laurie concluded -- that yes, apparently yellowdog.com initially offered something that they shouldn't, but they've apparently corrected it, and it would take more digging to find all the details behind "apparently". I doubt that this would make it to the top of the BoE's list of complaints to investigate, especially since they have a significant backlog already.

[MattD]

DB - You had quite the list for me to respond to, so I guess the best way to take them up one by one.



Instead of being a part of the solution to the problem of corruption, you instead are now choosing to be a part of the problem. Really? I have openly suggested three times you file charges with the ethics board. Frankly, if you have all the evidence - yet refuse to move forward with a charge - you are more part of the problem then I.



I've shown reasonable cause, up to this point, to suspect that both ethical and illegal activity has taken place, and you have made the purposeful and public choice to dig in your heels and come down on the side of the obstruction of justice. Two other people on this board have also suggested you have not shown enough reasonable cause. Noted that you are only going after me, though. Again, I have not obstructed justice in any manner and it is ridicules to conclude as such.



The receipts showing duplicitous charges exist, but are yet to be published in this forum.
If the receipts exists but are not published in this forum, then how in the world am I to surmise what they show?



You know some of these people who have used these services, but choose to do nothing.

I have no idea the client list is of the company.

[Laurie]

So, just out of curiosity, are John McCain and Stan Norwalk paying the same amount for the ads in the upper right of Cary Politics? Can Kenn Gardner and Obama get the same price they do?

[dhyatt]

So, just out of curiosity, are John McCain and Stan Norwalk paying the same amount for the ads in the upper right of Cary Politics? Can Kenn Gardner and Obama get the same price they do?

Both campaigns are paying exactly the same price. If they ask, absolutely. No one affiliated with either of those campaigns has asked.

[MattD]

So, just out of curiosity, are John McCain and Stan Norwalk paying the same amount for the ads in the upper right of Cary Politics? Can Kenn Gardner and Obama get the same price they do?

Both campaigns are paying exactly the same price. If they ask, absolutely. No one affiliated with either of those campaigns has asked.


dhyatt - but how cool would that be! Both Presidential campaigns spending money to place ads on Cary Politics!! Think of the great free (liberal) press you would get!!

[dhyatt]

So, just out of curiosity, are John McCain and Stan Norwalk paying the same amount for the ads in the upper right of Cary Politics? Can Kenn Gardner and Obama get the same price they do?

Both campaigns are paying exactly the same price. If they ask, absolutely. No one affiliated with either of those campaigns has asked.


dhyatt - but how cool would that be! Both Presidential campaigns spending money to place ads on Cary Politics!! Think of the great free (liberal) press you would get!!

A Dem official, at any level, could request an ad for Obama and I would be happy to oblige. (Contrary to popular opinion, I do not dislike Obama personally. I have great respect and admiration for what he has accomplished and the fact that I disagree with much of his platform should not be misconstrued.)

[johnshaw]

The receipts showing duplicitous charges exist, but are yet to be published in this forum.

Do you really have receipts or quotes showing a different price for the same amount of work, or a different hourly price, for Democrats vs. Republicans? If you have them, why don't you publish them? Could it be that you don't really have such evidence?

I have had a little bit of experience building web sites for some small businesses. From my experience, the time and difficulty is different for every website. Unless two sites are almost identical, a price comparison would be very difficult.

[DarylB]

Your juxtaposed positions, apathy on the one hand for Democratic criminal (not just ethical) activity on the part of Linda Watson and Jennifer Weiss, vs the somewhat more animated support for calls advocating the resignation of Kenn Gardner in support of Stan Norwalk for what you see as an ethical (though not criminal) violation, is dutifully noted.............Your angst is quite openly ideologically selective.

Your listed response ducked and weaved around this key point..... why? Or perhaps you owe Kenn Gardner a great big apology! He didn't break any laws, and you and Stan have been calling for the creation of ethis rules, but at the moment there are none. Yet, you went after Gardner bigtime, seeking his resignation, while you seem to have zero interest in the quite certainly unethical, and the in the proving stages illegal activities of Watson/Weiss. And just for the record, were this strictly an ethics question, I'd also be for letting the voters decide about Weiss, not call for her resignation, if that's all there was. She's crossed the line, however, into illegal advertising methods. That's more serious than just saying oops, and ceasing. There has been damage done to other candidates by these unfair business practices.

[MattD]

Your juxtaposed positions, apathy on the one hand for Democratic criminal (not just ethical) activity on the part of Linda Watson and Jennifer Weiss, vs the somewhat more animated support for calls advocating the resignation of Kenn Gardner in support of Stan Norwalk for what you see as an ethical (though not criminal) violation, is dutifully noted.............Your angst is quite openly ideologically selective.

Your listed response ducked and weaved around this key point..... why? Or perhaps you owe Kenn Gardner a great big apology! He didn't break any laws, and you and Stan have been calling for the creation of ethis rules, but at the moment there are none. Yet, you went after Gardner bigtime, seeking his resignation, while you seem to have zero interest in the quite certainly unethical, and the in the proving stages illegal activities of Watson/Weiss. And just for the record, were this strictly an ethics question, I'd also be for letting the voters decide about Weiss, not call for her resignation, if that's all there was. She's crossed the line, however, into illegal advertising methods. That's more serious than just saying oops, and ceasing. There has been damage done to other candidates by these unfair business practices.

DB - I wasn't ducking the question... I was ducking the plate of spaghetti you were throwing to see what would stick on the wall. Let's compare the two issues:

1. You have made allegations that a state rep has done something unlawful. You show no hard evidence other then she was a client of yellowdogs. You claim to have evidence, but have not posted anything. You have also - for some reason - chosen not to go to the press or file an ethics complaint.

2. A county commissioner sued a non-profit organization for not paying him. However, he claims the payments are from a time when he publically declared he was donating his time to the non-profit. He stated there was no conflict of interest. During this time, he also voted in the favor of this non-profit. The news media did an investigation. The county atty claimed he DID try to use his elected seat to influence an outcome but the only reason it was not illegal was he failed in his attempt. There has been damage done to the public trust of the citizens of Wake County.

In Gardner's situation, the people who made the allegation followed through on their efforts. There was the "smoking gun" of evidence. The news media was notified and an investigation followed.

[DarylB]

There was the "smoking gun" of evidence.

So then, let's take a look and see if there is ALSO a "smoking gun" of evidence in "YellowDog-Gate", shall we?


The Clayton Antitrust Act is comprised of §§ 12, 13, 14-19, 20, 21, 22-27 of Title 15.
......
Sec. 13. Discrimination in price, services, or facilities (§ 2 of the Clayton Act)
(a) Price; selection of customers
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States.

... then, we have the specifics provided from within the website, as it was originally posted, with the intent of a duplicitous charging scale, one for conservatives, one for "progressives"....


Ask for a Quote for Your Internet and Communications Needs

Hosting from $8.95 a month

Press releases, newsletters, and editing from $100
Updates of existing sites from $250
New sites from $750
Cut your ongoing support costs by prepaying for blocks of time. Special low rates for progressive candidates or causes and for members of Raleigh Unchained.
Contact head yellow dog (http://web.archive.org/web/20070609164617/http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Yellow_dog_Democrat) Linda Watson at linda.watson@wakeupyellowdogs.com (linda.watson@wakeupyellowdogs.com) or 919-781-1044.
....and we note that she has actually provided services (not interested in how much and for whom for the purpose of this section of the post....)

Representative Jennifer Weiss: weissforhouse.com (http://web.archive.org/web/20070609164617/http://www.weissforhouse.com/). We're delighted to have done Representative Weiss's site for the second campaign season in a row. Her website design is based around an existing star-and-stripes logo. Notice the photograph (http://web.archive.org/web/20070609164617/http://www.weissforhouse.com/photos.htm) of Representative Weiss filing for office. Take Wake Up Yellow Dogs with you to events to capture the moment.

.... then we have the actual wording of one of the laws covering fair practices in advertising in political campaigns......

from the NC Campaign Finance Manual:

§ 163-278.18. Normal commercial charges for political advertising.
(a) No media and no supplier of materials or services shall charge or require a
candidate, treasurer, political party, or individual to pay a charge for advertising,
materials, space, or services purchased for or in support of or in opposition to any
candidate, political committee, or political party that is higher than the normal charge it
requires other customers to pay for comparable advertising, materials, space, or services
purchased for other purposes.
(b) A newspaper, magazine, or other advertising medium shall not charge any
candidate, treasurer, political committee, political party, or individual for any advertising
for or in support of or in opposition to any candidate, political committee or political
party at a rate higher than the comparable rate charged to other persons for advertising of
comparable frequency and volume; and every candidate, treasurer, political party or
individual, with respect to political advertising, shall be entitled to the same discounts
afforded by the advertising medium to other advertisers under comparable conditions and
circumstances. (1973, c. 1272, s. 1; 1977, c. 856.)

So let's take a breather, and ask only two simple questions based on what we DEFINITELY know and have published proof of, directly concerning ONLY the activities of Linda Watson and the YellowDog website......

1) Is the publication of this web ad an ethical violation?, and
2) Does the publication of this web ad violate any laws?

Not just speculation, actual happenings...

MattD, Based on the law as presented, and the evidence (the "smoking gun" of an actually posted website), wouldn't you have to agree that Linda Watson has clearly broken the law, and that you have now seen the proof of at least THIS MUCH of the claims to date? (note that this is a separate issue from that of the specific offer or proven usage of the site by Jennifer Weiss, or others)

I'll help you along...
Answers:
1) Yes
2) Yes, simply posting the ad was in clear violation of several laws

Evidence of the fact that Jennifer Weiss actually used these services exists (it says so on the website), as it does for numerous other Democratic office seekers and party officials. At minimum, Linda Watson has violated the law, and the existence of the published web ad IS sufficient evidence for a legal violation to have occurred. Further evidence in the form of receipts ... still working that issue. I'll be starting with a public information request to the BoE for the campaign finance reports of Rep. Weiss (and others), specifically for her (and others) advertising expenditures. We'll go from there.....

http://web.archive.org/web/200706091...ellowdogs.com/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20070609164617/http://www.wakeupyellowdogs.com/)

[chaboard]

The Clayton Antitrust Act is comprised of §§ 12, 13, 14-19, 20, 21, 22-27 of Title 15.
......
Sec. 13. Discrimination in price, services, or facilities (§ 2 of the Clayton Act)
(a) Price; selection of customers
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States.


Some very selective quoting going on here. Read the REST of the sentence - in fact the very next clause.....



....AND where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination


Land sakes, imagine that. A bill called the Clayton AntiTrust act that concerns itself with practices only when they "lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly". Notice that none of the criteria listed in the text of the law appear to even remotely apply here.

Daryl's simplistic reading is absurd on its face...it would render such everyday things as your Food Lion MVP card (which clearly "discriminate[s] in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality") as being totally illegal.

Much ado about nothing. Just a dog with a bone.

[Laurie]

So, just out of curiosity, are John McCain and Stan Norwalk paying the same amount for the ads in the upper right of Cary Politics? Can Kenn Gardner and Obama get the same price they do?

Both campaigns are paying exactly the same price. If they ask, absolutely. No one affiliated with either of those campaigns has asked.

Earlier in the thread, there was mention of a free McCain ad in the corner. I was actually wondering if they paid anything at all. Since they both paid the exact same price, was the price they paid nothing? I'll be checking Stan's campaign reports -next one is due Oct 26th. But you can go ahead and tell me now. (I look through the campaign reports as kind of a hobby. You learn things from them.)

[Laurie]

from the NC Campaign Finance Manual:
§ 163-278.18. Normal commercial charges for political advertising.
no supplier of materials or services shall charge or require a
candidate, treasurer, political party, or individual to pay

There is still no proof that anyone was charged or required to pay a different amount than anyone else. Do you really think anyone other than 'progressive' candidates has approached this company to do work on their campaigns for there to even be an opportunity for them to be charged differently?

You saw an inapproprite offer on a website. Through your actions, they found out they could not make that offer. They removed that offer. Your efforts affected change. Why can't you enjoy this victory? Because you couldn't get Jennifer Weiss, which seems to be the objective from the beginning.

[dhyatt]

So, just out of curiosity, are John McCain and Stan Norwalk paying the same amount for the ads in the upper right of Cary Politics? Can Kenn Gardner and Obama get the same price they do?

Both campaigns are paying exactly the same price. If they ask, absolutely. No one affiliated with either of those campaigns has asked.

Earlier in the thread, there was mention of a free McCain ad in the corner. I was actually wondering if they paid anything at all. Since they both paid the exact same price, was the price they paid nothing? I'll be checking Stan's campaign reports -next one is due Oct 26th. But you can go ahead and tell me now. (I look through the campaign reports as kind of a hobby. You learn things from them.)

Because Stan is a long time CP member and the only candidate currently running for office that actively participates on this board, I decided to put a banner up for him free of charge for the last 3 weeks of the campaign. He paid nothing for it and I am not charging him anything for it. I am now obliged to do so for any other candidate that asks.

I had planned on making the McCain banner an in-kind contribution (referenced not in this thread but here (http://carypolitics.org/forums/showpost.php?p=46071&postcount=217)) however because he is taking public financing (Obama is not), I learned I can't do that. Once I decided to put up a free one for Stan, the point became moot. From now until the election, any candidate who wants a banner - and asks for it (either the candidate or their staff) - will get one, free of charge.

[Don]

A Dem official, at any level, could request an ad for Obama and I would be happy to oblige. (Contrary to popular opinion, I do not dislike Obama personally. I have great respect and admiration for what he has accomplished and the fact that I disagree with much of his platform should not be misconstrued.)

Can a Republican official pay you to NOT place an Obama ad? :-) :-)

[Don]

You saw an inapproprite offer on a website. Through your actions, they found out they could not make that offer. They removed that offer. Your efforts affected change. Why can't you enjoy this victory? Because you couldn't get Jennifer Weiss, which seems to be the objective from the beginning.

DarylB - Change we can believe in! :-)

[DarylB]

The receipts showing duplicitous charges exist, but are yet to be published in this forum.

Do you really have receipts or quotes showing a different price for the same amount of work, or a different hourly price, for Democrats vs. Republicans? If you have them, why don't you publish them? Could it be that you don't really have such evidence?

I have had a little bit of experience building web sites for some small businesses. From my experience, the time and difficulty is different for every website. Unless two sites are almost identical, a price comparison would be very difficult.

If Linda Watson reported her taxes showing that she received less income due to these reduced rates than she actually received, and subsequently payed less taxes on her business, these income tax shortfalls that are not going to the IRS are essentially being passed along to Democratic candidates in the form of rate reductions. If this is what's happening, and at the present time it is in the investigative stages, she will have filed a falsified income tax return...not saying she did, but I think there is reason for thinking that possibility exists. I'm pretty sure the IRS would be interested in finding out, especially in the present economic environment....and as you pointed out, she has done the majority of her work for "progressives", which I think makes it at least a likelihood. I'm damned sure that I as a voter am interested in any economic slight-of-hand by politicians, and their supporters, backers, and funding schemers, partiularly when we've been told by a VERY high profile Democratic candidate that paying taxes is "PATRIOTIC". At the present time, it's best to just say that the whole interconnected pricing system based on ideology in her business is suspect, based on her strategy of a differential pricing policy. I've already shown it to be an illegal operation, but at this point it is simply going to take a little more effort to discern how far the illegalities go. Then it will be a more appropriate time to decide what actions should be taken. We definitely know at this point it's a little more than just Matt's "ethical violations". There are many more of Jim Black's (and Jim Black-esque) efforts waiting to be discovered, and I for one don't think we should stop with looking only at him, thinking that solved the problem, and simply covering up the rest because we don't like what we see.

[d4vendel]

Because Stan is a long time CP member and the only candidate currently running for office that actively participates on this board, I decided to put a banner up for him free of charge for the last 3 weeks of the campaign. He paid nothing for it and I am not charging him anything for it. I am now obliged to do so for any other candidate that asks.

From now until the election, any candidate who wants a banner - and asks for it (either the candidate or their staff) - will get one, free of charge.

Don,

You are still treating these as in-kind contributions and the candidate(s) is/are reporting the advertising as such, right? Otherwise, you and the candidate(s) will not be in compliance with North Carolina Campaign Finance Laws.

Since you DO charge for advertising on CP, you cannot get around the requirements of the law by saying it is free for candidates while using the same space used for paid advertisements.

As far as campaign finance law goes, there is no such things as "free" advertising on the Internet. You are paying something to have this board hosted. You are paying software license fees, etc. Even if you are "donating" the advertising to candidates, there is a cost to you to provide it. This MUST be treated as an in-kind contribution and MUST be declared by the candidate(s) as such. The in-kind contribution would be equivalent to whatever you would charge someone for the same amount of advertising in the same space running at the same frequency.

[dhyatt]

Because Stan is a long time CP member and the only candidate currently running for office that actively participates on this board, I decided to put a banner up for him free of charge for the last 3 weeks of the campaign. He paid nothing for it and I am not charging him anything for it. I am now obliged to do so for any other candidate that asks.

From now until the election, any candidate who wants a banner - and asks for it (either the candidate or their staff) - will get one, free of charge.

Don,

You are still treating these as in-kind contributions and the candidate(s) is/are reporting the advertising as such, right? Otherwise, you and the candidate(s) will not be in compliance with North Carolina Campaign Finance Laws.

Since you DO charge for advertising on CP, you cannot get around the requirements of the law by saying it is free for candidates while using the same space used for paid advertisements.

As far as campaign finance law goes, there is no such things as "free" advertising on the Internet. You are paying something to have this board hosted. You are paying software license fees, etc. Even if you are "donating" the advertising to candidates, there is a cost to you to provide it. This MUST be treated as an in-kind contribution and MUST be declared by the candidate(s) as such. The in-kind contribution would be equivalent to whatever you would charge someone for the same amount of advertising in the same space running at the same frequency.

Dave,
The challenge is I can't seem to figure out how to do that with the McCain campaign. Obama and even Nader have forms right on their websites for in-kind contributions. I have not found one for the McCain campaign. So far, I haven't really charged anybody for advertising. I agreed to put up a banner of choice for 1 year for those that donated $100 to help with the CP site upgrade. If I applied the same metric (and pro-rated it) to Stan's & McCain's ad, then the McCain ad would have an in-kind value of $10 and Stan's ad about $6. I think I said elsewhere I would put up an Obama ad for $100 but that would be for a full year which there wouldn't be much point in doing this late in the campaign.

This is why I shied away from any kind of advertising and just covered it myself for so many years. It's a royal PIA.

[francejamie]

And you want to vote McCain into office, when his team can't even figure out how to give you a simple form? :)

Maybe you should just put of the Obama one since they have the form there for you.

[dhyatt]

And you want to vote McCain into office, when his team can't even figure out how to give you a simple form? :)

Maybe you should just put of the Obama one since they have the form there for you.

I don't want to put one up for Obama :-) However, a $4 donation via paypal to donate--at--carypolitics.org would compel me to do so. The donor would also have to send me the appropriate 400x80 banner. (subject to CPs review process of course, i.e., I have to deem it OK)

[Laurie]

Are you still the owner of CP? Or is it a registered nonprofit? Can a nonprofit donate anything to a candidate?

[Laurie]

I don't want to put one up for Obama :-) However, a $4 donation via paypal to donate--at--carypolitics.org would compel me to do so. The donor would also have to send me the appropriate 400x80 banner. (subject to CPs review process of course, i.e., I have to deem it OK)

So McCain's ad is free but Obama's is $4? I hope DarylB has a cow over this.

Anything of value done/ donated on behalf of a candidate must be reported to and by the candidate with the person's name and personal information. For pres, under $200 the personal info stays private, but the dollar amount is reported by the candidate. This is the problem when people do things on their own instead of going through the candidate's campaign. There are ways to report independent expenditures, but I can't remember the dollar threshold.

[DarylB]

So McCain's ad is free but Obama's is $4? I hope DarylB has a cow over this.

Sounds like Hyatt has gotten a jump start on an "Obama Presidency", and has already begun "redistributing the wealth".... $-)


Anything of value done/ donated on behalf of a candidate must be reported to and by the candidate with the person's name and personal information. For pres, under $200 the personal info stays private, but the dollar amount is reported by the candidate. This is the problem when people do things on their own instead of going through the candidate's campaign. There are ways to report independent expenditures, but I can't remember the dollar threshold.

Gee, I sure hope that if Weiss, Watson and Hyatt are all in prison together :3some: for political fundraising issues, that Hyatt will bend their ears with wisdom daily :occasion5: , and ensure the CP servers don't go down! :dark1:

:clock: doin' time......

...but something tells me Hyatt's trying to figure out how to make it right, where the other two have conspired to skirt the laws and promote an agenda with ill gotten gains. Seems a little different to me, personally......but that's just my opinion.

[dhyatt]

Are you still the owner of CP? Or is it a registered nonprofit? Can a nonprofit donate anything to a candidate?

All in-kind contributions come from me personally because the Cary Politics website is still registered to me and not to Cary Politics, Inc (which is a registered non-profit). The tax law is really weird on this and I can't say I fully understand it :-/ For instance, Moveon.org has two components, a 501(c)3 'Civic Action' part (non-profit) and and a 501(c)4 Political Action part. Money seems to flow freely between the two but they keep separate books.

Non-profits can make political contributions to candidates based on state and local law but they can not contribute directly to federal campaigns. If someone were to pay the $4 on the Obama campaign's behalf and ask for an ad to be posted, I think (but I'm not certain about this :-/ ) their $4 contribution would have to count as some sort of independent expenditure (see note below) for a paid advertisement. I don't think it would qualify, in that case, as any kind of an in-kind contribution. However, the banners I put up - as website owner - are supposed to be in-kind contributions, assuming I can figure out how to document that. If the Swanstrom campaign, for instance, paid Cary Politics directly $4 to run an ad, then it's simply a paid political advertisement.

Believe me, I'm open to any and all feedback on this because, taken to its limits, it can get quite hairy.


***
Independent Expenditures (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/indexp.shtml)

Under federal election law, an individual or group (such as a PAC) may make unlimited "independent expenditures" in connection with federal elections.
An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and which is made independently from the candidate's campaign. To be considered independent, the communication may not be made with the cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or his/her authorized committees or a political party, or any of their agents. While there is no limit on how much anyone may spend on an independent expenditure, the law does require persons making independent expenditures to report them and to disclose the sources of the funds they used. The public can review these reports (http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/imaging_info.shtml) at the FEC's Public Records Office.

[dhyatt]

I don't want to put one up for Obama :-) However, a $4 donation via paypal to donate--at--carypolitics.org would compel me to do so. The donor would also have to send me the appropriate 400x80 banner. (subject to CPs review process of course, i.e., I have to deem it OK)

So McCain's ad is free but Obama's is $4? [snip]

No. The McCain ad is a $10 independent expenditure in the form of an in-kind contribution from Don Hyatt. The price is based on standard rates of $100/yr pro-rated for the 5 weeks the ad will run.

Independent expenditures by individuals in excess of $250/yr must be reported.

*** Any other person (individual, partnership, qualified nonprofit corporation or group of individuals) must file a report with the FEC on FEC Form 5 (http://www.fec.gov/pdf/forms/fecfrm5.pdf) [PDF] at the end of the first reporting period in which independent expenditures with respect to a given election aggregate more than $250 in a calendar year and in any succeeding period during the same year in which additional independent expenditures of any amount are made. 11 CFR 109.10(b) (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/janqtr/11cfr109.10.htm).

[Brent]

WASHINGTON (CP) -- John McCain announced today that he is suspending his campaign so that he can turn his full attention to the mounting campaign finance crisis in Cary, NC. McCain said that he would fly immediately to Raleigh. "In addition to working day and night with dhyatt until we hammer out an agreement, I will also reach across party lines to ensure that any agreement also takes care of Jennifer Weiss and yellow dogs everywhere," McCain stated.

[Brent]

At the risk of being banned from CP, I have just two words for you, Hyatt:

AIRPLANE BANNER

[Brent]

I don't want to put one up for Obama :-) However, a $4 donation via paypal to donate--at--carypolitics.org would compel me to do so.

OK, but I thought that:


From now until the election, any candidate who wants a banner - and asks for it (either the candidate or their staff) - will get one, free of charge.

Is $4 free of charge?

[DarylB]

At the risk of being banned from CP, I have just two words for you, Hyatt:

AIRPLANE BANNER




http://media.bigoo.ws/content/gif/transport/transport_177.gif----Linda Watson web ads - Liberals only - taxes Optional!

[dhyatt]

I don't want to put one up for Obama :-) However, a $4 donation via paypal to donate--at--carypolitics.org would compel me to do so.

OK, but I thought that:


From now until the election, any candidate who wants a banner - and asks for it (either the candidate or their staff) - will get one, free of charge.

Is $4 free of charge?

Pretty close actually but if the candidate themselves ask me, I'll do it as an in-kind independent expenditure. If they pay the $4, they don't have to ask. If somebody else pays the $4, they don't have to ask. You guys are making me think really hard for $4 ;-)

[chaboard]

You guys are making me think really hard for $4 ;-)

Hey that's FOUR Thursday night Circus dogs. Nothing to sneeze at in these hard times. ;)

[Brent]

Sorry, but I still have to call you on this inconsistency:


(either the candidate or their staff)


Pretty close actually but if the candidate themselves ask me, I'll do it as an in-kind independent expenditure.

Your original terms were "free if candidate or staff asked".

Have those terms changed? It might seem like nitpicking, but the issue really is that the same terms MUST be offered to all candidates for office. I understand your hesitation, but did McCain -- the candidate himself or his staff -- request the free ad that's running?

This isn't about political preferences; it's about the level playing field that, in this case, is required.

P.S. After a refresher with the NC Campaign Finance Manual, I am unconvinced that non-profit corporations can legally contribute to campaigns. A detailed review of the actual statutes may be in order, but I see no distinction between for-profit and non-profit corporations, and NC Campaign Finance Law is unequivocal that corporations may not contribute to campaigns. Based on your earlier explanation, this (who's paying for ads) is likely to be a separate issue from offering all candidates the same terms, but I thought it was worth raising the point so that a final determination might be made.

And my advice to EVERYONE in the state of North Carolina: Do not -- I repeat, DO NOT -- argue NC campaign finance law with Laurie. You might win a skirmish here and there, but your odds are long, and you won't win major battles, let alone the war. Trust me on this one.

[Laurie]

From the NC Campaign Finance Manual:

Corporation
Refers to any corporation doing business under either domestic or foreign charter. This would include any corporate subsidiary and any business entity in which a corporation participates or is a stockholder, a partner, or member of a joint venture.

It is unlawful for any corporation, business entity, labor union, professional association, or insurance company to directly or indirectly contribute to a candidate.


Non-profits can make political contributions to candidates based on state and local law but they can not contribute directly to federal campaigns.

From NOLO.com:

Unlike regular corporations, a nonprofit corporation cannot distribute any profits to its members, contribute money to political campaigns, or engage in lobbying activity

[dhyatt]

From the NC Campaign Finance Manual:

Corporation
Refers to any corporation doing business under either domestic or foreign charter. This would include any corporate subsidiary and any business entity in which a corporation participates or is a stockholder, a partner, or member of a joint venture.

It is unlawful for any corporation, business entity, labor union, professional association, or insurance company to directly or indirectly contribute to a candidate.


Non-profits can make political contributions to candidates based on state and local law but they can not contribute directly to federal campaigns.

From NOLO.com:

Unlike regular corporations, a nonprofit corporation cannot distribute any profits to its members, contribute money to political campaigns, or engage in lobbying activity

In NC, yes that's true, thus my use of "based on state and local law" which comes directly from the federal campaign finance laws and why I was explicit that in-kind contributions come from me.
The McCain ad is a $10 independent expenditure in the form of an in-kind contribution from Don Hyatt.Also, in NC, 3rd party (independent) expenditures must be reported on form CRO-2210 if they exceed $100.

re Brent's comments of 'candidate' vs 'candidate or staff', it's obviously the latter. I was contacted by someone on Swanstrom's campaign for instance, not Swanstrom himself. The same goes for McCain, I was contacted by a friend who works in his Mars Hill, NC Victory office. For the record, I put up Stan's banner of my own volition. As a long time CP member and one of the very few actual candidates that is active and has been active for a long time on CP, I thought he deserved it.

To wit: All CP banner ads are low dollar independent expenditures in the form of in-kind contributions from Don Hyatt - not Cary Politics - and are well under limits established by federal and NC law requiring reporting of said contributions, being $10 or less. Furthermore, some ads have been placed at the request of candidate's staff, McCain & Swanstrom, and should therefore be reported by those campaigns as $10 and $4 in-kind contributions respectively. The Norwalk ad was not requested by his campaign staff and is therefore simply an independent expenditure by yours truly. Moreover, though non-profits, in North Carolina, can not contribute directly to candidates, they are allowed to make independent expenditures as long as their sole purpose is not to collect and distribute campaign contributions, in which case they would not be considered a corporation per 2008-2009 NC Campaign Finance law.

[DarylB]

Keeping CP'ers posted and up to date on the progress of "YellowDog-Gate", I'm requesting today as public information the financial reports for the last two campaigns of Jennifer Weiss, specifically advertising expenditures. I'm also advising the BoE of the illegal web ad at the same time.

Further, I'm sending the information collected so far, complete with original web page, concerning the YellowDog ad, to (you guessed it) Fox News (Bill O'Reilly), see if the folks at "Fair and Balanced" are interested in reporting on something that is for certain quite Unfair and totally Off Balance.

[Brent]

To wit: All CP banner ads are low dollar independent expenditures in the form of in-kind contributions from Don Hyatt - not Cary Politics - and are well under limits established by federal and NC law requiring reporting of said contributions, being $10 or less. Furthermore, some ads have been placed at the request of candidate's staff, McCain & Swanstrom, and should therefore be reported by those campaigns as $10 and $4 in-kind contributions respectively. The Norwalk ad was not requested by his campaign staff and is therefore simply an independent expenditure by yours truly. Moreover, though non-profits, in North Carolina, can not contribute directly to candidates, they are allowed to make independent expenditures as long as their sole purpose is not to collect and distribute campaign contributions, in which case they would not be considered a corporation per 2008-2009 NC Campaign Finance law.

OK, thanks for clearing this up.

I'll buy most of this, although I don't think you've correctly characterized reporting requirements. In NC, all contributions must be reported (period). The contributor's name (etc.) need not be reported unless/until that individual's aggregate contributions exceed $50. But $10, $4, or a dime, all contributions must be reported. If we want to quibble further about this (I don't), we can just have Laurie set us straight. ;-)

But thanks for clarifying. I actually enjoy the new variety of banner ads (including, I now see, Kristin Ruth). Although Al Swanstrom might not be thrilled that "Race for the Cure" covers up his ever-so-handsome mug :) ).

[francejamie]

Ok, Don. I sent you your $4.


Here's my banner - although if any Obama supporter has a better banner, I'm willing to have him switch it:


http://www.stargazing.com/obama_banner.jpg


I know it's not exactly 400x80, but I wasn't sure if that's an exact requirement, or more of the approximate size.

[dhyatt]

To wit: All CP banner ads are low dollar independent expenditures in the form of in-kind contributions from Don Hyatt - not Cary Politics - and are well under limits established by federal and NC law requiring reporting of said contributions, being $10 or less. Furthermore, some ads have been placed at the request of candidate's staff, McCain & Swanstrom, and should therefore be reported by those campaigns as $10 and $4 in-kind contributions respectively. The Norwalk ad was not requested by his campaign staff and is therefore simply an independent expenditure by yours truly. Moreover, though non-profits, in North Carolina, can not contribute directly to candidates, they are allowed to make independent expenditures as long as their sole purpose is not to collect and distribute campaign contributions, in which case they would not be considered a corporation per 2008-2009 NC Campaign Finance law.

OK, thanks for clearing this up.

I'll buy most of this, although I don't think you've correctly characterized reporting requirements. In NC, all contributions must be reported (period). The contributor's name (etc.) need not be reported unless/until that individual's aggregate contributions exceed $50. But $10, $4, or a dime, all contributions must be reported. If we want to quibble further about this (I don't), we can just have Laurie set us straight. ;-)

But thanks for clarifying. I actually enjoy the new variety of banner ads (including, I now see, Kristin Ruth). Although Al Swanstrom might not be thrilled that "Race for the Cure" covers up his ever-so-handsome mug :) ).

I think we are in agreement. There is a small inconsistency in NC Law in that all contributions (made directly to a campaign) have to reported and accounted for by the campaign. However, independent expenditures - i.e. those not authorized or asked for by a campaign - only have to be reported when they exceed $100 and they have to be reported by the provider, not the campaign which may not even be aware of them.

The law appears to be a little different for the publicly financed judges races where they can not accept any campaign contributions, even in-kind contributions, after the primaries. As a result, Judge Ruth's campaign is sending Cary Politics a check for $4 which I will put towards the first dedicated server I can find. It seems we have simply outgrown any kind of a shared or entry level VPS webhost. I'm considering moving to an nginx server that has integrated FLV streaming so if you have knowledge along those lines, let's hear it. Start a new thread though, don't put it here.

[DarylB]

To wit: All CP banner ads are low dollar independent expenditures in the form of in-kind contributions from Don Hyatt - not Cary Politics - and are well under limits established by federal and NC law requiring reporting of said contributions, being $10 or less. Furthermore, some ads have been placed at the request of candidate's staff, McCain & Swanstrom, and should therefore be reported by those campaigns as $10 and $4 in-kind contributions respectively. The Norwalk ad was not requested by his campaign staff and is therefore simply an independent expenditure by yours truly. Moreover, though non-profits, in North Carolina, can not contribute directly to candidates, they are allowed to make independent expenditures as long as their sole purpose is not to collect and distribute campaign contributions, in which case they would not be considered a corporation per 2008-2009 NC Campaign Finance law.

OK, thanks for clearing this up.

I'll buy most of this, although I don't think you've correctly characterized reporting requirements. In NC, all contributions must be reported (period). The contributor's name (etc.) need not be reported unless/until that individual's aggregate contributions exceed $50. But $10, $4, or a dime, all contributions must be reported. If we want to quibble further about this (I don't), we can just have Laurie set us straight. ;-)

But thanks for clarifying. I actually enjoy the new variety of banner ads (including, I now see, Kristin Ruth). Although Al Swanstrom might not be thrilled that "Race for the Cure" covers up his ever-so-handsome mug :) ).

And speaking of total political boobs being in your face, you just can't do better than Weiss and Watson, and their YellowDog.com "progressive discount pricing" web ad.......a "Booby prize" if there ever was one!

Just touching on the original topic! :iconbiggrin:

[dhyatt]

Ok, Don. I sent you your $4.


Here's my banner - although if any Obama supporter has a better banner, I'm willing to have him switch it:


http://www.stargazing.com/obama_banner.jpg


I know it's not exactly 400x80, but I wasn't sure if that's an exact requirement, or more of the approximate size.

Needs to be 400x80 or less and it's 4px too tall. I'm afraid I'm just so busy I won't be able to fix it and post it until sometime after Nov. 4th. Sorry :-(

KIDDING!!!!! I'm KIDDING!!!! It's up.

[DarylB]

A novel idea for a Banner ad...


They go together like hand and glove...Black and Weiss!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Demonstrate_Pixel.gif (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Demonstrate_Pixel.gif)

[johnshaw]

A novel idea for a Banner ad...


They go together like hand and glove...Black and Weiss!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Demonstrate_Pixel.gif (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Demonstrate_Pixel.gif)
Daryl,
Do you have any evidence that Rep. Weiss broke any law? I have been following this thread, and so far you haven't shown any.

[DarylB]

A novel idea for a Banner ad...


They go together like hand and glove...Black and Weiss!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Demonstrate_Pixel.gif (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Demonstrate_Pixel.gif)
Daryl,
Do you have any evidence that Rep. Weiss broke any law? I have been following this thread, and so far you haven't shown any.

Weiss has been used as an example by Watson as having had success due to her advertising schemes, which she publicly posted as at an advantaged price to Democrats, in violation of the law. Weiss knew of the advertising scheme, and has allowed her campaign to continue using an illegally functioning advertising agency, even with the full knowledge gained by having to undergo training by BoE to ensure candidates all have knowledge to afford them the opportunity to avoid such scandals. I await more information from the BoE on her finance reporting for advertising expenditures.

[Brent]

Personally, I don't believe that a candidate paying for services at a price quoted by a business violates campaign finance law. It would be a problem -- for the business -- if the business refused to offer the same rate to all clients.

But I'm not the BoE, and I'm not the resident expert (Laurie is).


I await more information from the BoE on her finance reporting for advertising expenditures.

Why are you waiting? The last I knew, hardcopies of campaign finance reports are available at the BoE for perusal and (you pay) copying. Many are also posted online (I *THINK* state offices are, but I'm not positive).

[d4vendel]

Jennifer Weiss Campaign Reports (http://www.app.sboe.state.nc.us/webapps/cf_rpt_search/cf_report_doc_results.aspx?ID=STA-C1521N-C-001&OGID=1807)

There. That took 30 whole seconds to find on the BOE site....

[DarylB]

http://carypolitics.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=5&stc=1&d=1225746239

[DarylB]

While the "non progressive" public paid $750.00 for web hosting, Jennifer Weiss paid the illegal "Progressive discount" pricing of $588.00. She knowingly violates campaign finance laws.

[johnshaw]

While the "non progressive" public paid $750.00 for web hosting, Jennifer Weiss paid the illegal "Progressive discount" pricing of $588.00. She knowingly violates campaign finance laws.

Where do you get the figure $750? Is it for the same length of time and for the same level of service?

[Laurie]

While the "non progressive" public paid $750.00 for web hosting, Jennifer Weiss paid the illegal "Progressive discount" pricing of $588.00. She knowingly violates campaign finance laws.

What "non-progressive" candidates have been charged more? Or any candidate that has been charged more? Or quoted a higher price?

[d4vendel]

Daryl,

While I am not defending Weiss in any way, I do have some questions about the case you are trying to build.

Who paid $750 for the same service that Jennifer received?

Looking at the Wake Up Yellow Dogs site, there is no rate chart or stated fees. It appears that Linda Watson charges what she wants based on the work done.

Reading through the campaign finance reports (and not just the page you scanned - I provided you with a link to see all of her reports online), I see web hosting, ad development, website maintenance, etc. It is kind of hard to tell just how much she is paying for what.

The page you scanned shows a single change for $588.00 for web hosting fees. What does that include? For how long of a period was it?

Who got the exact same level of service and work and paid more than $588.00 for it?

What I don't see is you showing any evidence that another person received the same level of service (amount of time to develop, space used, any database behind the scenes, maintenance levels, etc.) and paid more for it.

Maybe Linda Watson and Jennifer Weiss did something wrong. Maybe not. You have not provided any real evidence to make your case.

[DarylB]

Daryl,

While I am not defending Weiss in any way, I do have some questions about the case you are trying to build.

Who paid $750 for the same service that Jennifer received?

Looking at the Wake Up Yellow Dogs site, there is no rate chart or stated fees. It appears that Linda Watson charges what she wants based on the work done.

Reading through the campaign finance reports (and not just the page you scanned - I provided you with a link to see all of her reports online), I see web hosting, ad development, website maintenance, etc. It is kind of hard to tell just how much she is paying for what.

The page you scanned shows a single change for $588.00 for web hosting fees. What does that include? For how long of a period was it?

Who got the exact same level of service and work and paid more than $588.00 for it?

What I don't see is you showing any evidence that another person received the same level of service (amount of time to develop, space used, any database behind the scenes, maintenance levels, etc.) and paid more for it.

Maybe Linda Watson and Jennifer Weiss did something wrong. Maybe not. You have not provided any real evidence to make your case.
Here's the portion of the web ad, as it used to be posted....


Ask for a Quote for Your Internet and Communications Needs


Hosting from $8.95 a month
Press releases, newsletters, and editing from $100
Updates of existing sites from $250
New sites from $750
Cut your ongoing support costs by prepaying for blocks of time. Special low rates for progressive candidates or causes and for members of Raleigh Unchained.
Contact head yellow dog (http://web.archive.org/web/20070609164617/http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Yellow_dog_Democrat) Linda Watson at linda.watson@wakeupyellowdogs.com (linda.watson@wakeupyellowdogs.com) or 919-781-1044.
Get it done right the first time with Wake Up Yellow Dogs. We listen to YOU!


Linda Watson and Jennifer Weiss both changed their websites, shortly after I started this thread. As stated in the website, she was a client for the second year in a row.

Here's the link to the full content of the old website, http://web.archive.org/web/20070609164617/http://www.wakeupyellowdogs.com/

And here's the link to the new and "revised" website.
www.wakeupyellowdogs.com (http://www.wakeupyellowdogs.com)

d4vendel asked

Who paid $750 for the same service that Jennifer received?
...in fact, it doesn't matter, since the ad was in the public domain, and was a quoted price to the general public. But, as is also advertised, there was a special deal for "progressives", not open to the general public. That's the difference between $750 and $588. That's where the illegality is to be found.

[d4vendel]

Thanks, Daryl. That does help.

I'll have to dig a little more to see if this is indeed illegal or if just should be.

[d4vendel]

Here is what I found looking through Weiss's finance reports and the questions I have.

The first reference to a website is from 8/28/2002 when $500 was paid to Kim Saccoccio for "website design." I assume that this was Weiss's initial site.

The next website related expenditure is on 5/21/2006 for $250 paid to Wake Up Yellow Dogs for "website maintenance."

Where did the site live from 2002 to 2006? Who was paying the hosting fees? Who was paid the hosting fees?

The only other website related expenditure listed on her reports filed up to 10/18/2008 is $588.00 for "website hosting."

It appears that Weiss brought her website from somewhere else to YellowDog based on the site that was done in 2002. That may be why you don't see a $750 charge for a "new site."

Is the 2006 expenditure the $250 quoted on the old site as the fee for "updates from existing sites?"

What IS missing from her campaign finance reports is any mention of where her site was hosted and who was paying for it from the initial 2002 expenditure to the 2006 expenditure for "website maintenance."

Is the 2008 expenditure of $588 a reflection of the minimum $8.95 a month expenditure for hosting fees? If so, that buys you almost 5 and half years of hosting. Of course, I have never had a hosting company charge me for hosting fees after the fact, so that seems a little odd to me.

[johnshaw]

It appears that Weiss brought her website from somewhere else to YellowDog based on the site that was done in 2002. That may be why you don't see a $750 charge for a "new site."
It is certainly common to charge a lower amount to update an existing site than to build a new site. The charge for updating depends on how much change is needed.

You should also consider the two payments made on 8/28/08 and 10/18/08 that total $750.

Also consider that the latest report ends on 10/18/08. There may be more payments to come.



Of course, I have never had a hosting company charge me for hosting fees after the fact, so that seems a little odd to me.Large companies usually charge up front to a credit card. However, I have had individuals quote me for hosting services with payment well after the hosting started. While candidates normally have to pay up in full before election day, it would certainly not surprise me for an individual provider to not require me to pay until after some money comes in from my business.

We also have no idea what is in the $588 - how long the hosting was for and what services were included.

We have no information about actual charges to other customers - both political and business. The only thing we know is that the issue involves a very small amount of money.

We also know that Rep. Weiss is running against someone who has already said that "I am not going to recuse myself any any matter involving real estate," (his business). That conflict of interest is potentially much larger.

[DarylB]

It appears that Weiss brought her website from somewhere else to YellowDog based on the site that was done in 2002. That may be why you don't see a $750 charge for a "new site."
It is certainly common to charge a lower amount to update an existing site than to build a new site. The charge for updating depends on how much change is needed.

You should also consider the two payments made on 8/28/08 and 10/18/08 that total $750.

Also consider that the latest report ends on 10/18/08. There may be more payments to come.



Of course, I have never had a hosting company charge me for hosting fees after the fact, so that seems a little odd to me.Large companies usually charge up front to a credit card. However, I have had individuals quote me for hosting services with payment well after the hosting started. While candidates normally have to pay up in full before election day, it would certainly not surprise me for an individual provider to not require me to pay until after some money comes in from my business.

We also have no idea what is in the $588 - how long the hosting was for and what services were included.

We have no information about actual charges to other customers - both political and business. The only thing we know is that the issue involves a very small amount of money.

We also know that Rep. Weiss is running against someone who has already said that "I am not going to recuse myself any any matter involving real estate," (his business). That conflict of interest is potentially much larger.

Where there's smoke, there's generally fire. Weiss is a big moneyed interest candidate, who has now been shown to not be too concerned with the rules. She has been accepting services in an illegal advertising scheme. Small....big.... it's still corruption. We don't have to look far to see that she's been quite close to Jim Black. Why make excuses? We need to clean house, and this house is not coming clean. Out with the old, and in with the new, in this case we decidedly need a CHANGE!

After I began exposing this ad scheme, the ads in both camps were changed, and the payments on 8/28/08 and 10/18/08 were made. Does it take someone watching her every move to ensure she'll do the right thing? We need confidence she knows and does the right thing because that's what is in the interests of the people she was sent to serve. Presently, she has given us reason for doubt. In this case of a small fee for website services, she took the favorited route, knowing it was wrong, then went into coverup mode.... they have admitted nothing, but it's a sure bet they knew what they were doing. I further believe this goes much deeper, as the ads are only the tip of the campaign finance iceberg. We haven't even begun to ask how funding schemes have been used for the passage of legislation for all her vested interests. Inquiring minds want to know.

[Brent]

Unless someone is serious enough about this to file a complaint with the BoE (who will do their own investigation, almost certainly without carypolitics private eyes ;) ), then this will all just remain talk and speculation.

And I'll repeat that I don't see how Jennifer Weiss, paying what she was invoiced, would have done something wrong. A business that knowingly charged different rates for the same service might have done something wrong. But that's for the BoE to decide. And what's been said here is that the situation already has been corrected.

[d4vendel]

Unless someone is serious enough about this to file a complaint with the BoE (who will do their own investigation, almost certainly without carypolitics private eyes ;) ), then this will all just remain talk and speculation.

And I'll repeat that I don't see how Jennifer Weiss, paying what she was invoiced, would have done something wrong. A business that knowingly charged different rates for the same service might have done something wrong. But that's for the BoE to decide. And what's been said here is that the situation already has been corrected.

I totally agree. 20 minutes reading through expenditure reports on-line does not an investigation make, rather it just shows my curiosity about accusations made.

I agree that nothing presented here points to any obvious wrong doing. Certainly nothing that I would take the BOE. Let's wait and see if others "put their money where their is" or if this is all been a big typing exercise.