102nd District – (ECWd) –
Attention to detail, the key factor in every article we have ever published. Many try to minimize, manipulate, or outright lie about the exposure of such detail and more often than not, those actions are taken by those being exposed or those supporting the ones exposed.
Pay attention to the timeline!
February 29th, 2016 (9:47 pm) I wrote this article exposing the campaign funding lies told by candidate Acklin.
March 1, 2016 (04:54 am) – Cindy Reese posts a comment on the above article: “Only $1,000 from Bob Morgan’s wife??? I wonder how much old Bob contributed under the table. That contribution speaks volumes!”
March 1, 2016 (1:09 pm) – I responded to the above comment: “Scroll down further. She has given a total of $5,900, which I believe exceeds the allowable limit from an individual.“
Individual contributions to a campaign cannot exceed $5,400.00. Accepting money over that amount is a violation of the law. As you can see with the reported contribution, Acklin accepted campaign funds from an individual in excess of the legally allowable limit.
March 1st, 2016 (3:04 pm), two hours after exposing we believed the referenced $1,000.00 contribution was over the allowable limit, the Acklin campaign sent a written correspondence to the State Board of Elections, found below. The state board of elections reports to have received it at 3:04 pm on March 1st, 2016 as noted with their stamp.
The treasurer wrote, “Cathy and Robert Morgan sent a $1,000 contribution and verbally specified that it was intended to be two $500 contributions from their joint account.”
Attention to detail!
The payment was recorded as received on February 29th, 2016 from Cathy Morgan, not Cathy and Robert Morgan. So that claim to the State Board of elections that the payment was from Cathy and Robert Morgan is not consistent with the reporting of the payment on February 29th, 2016. Had the payment been from both Cathy and Robert Morgan is this not an admission that the reporting of it being from Cathy on February 29th, 2016 was wrong? You see, you can’t have it both ways. When you report it was from one person and then later claim it was from two, it directly conflicts with the details.
Had that contribution been from two people as they try to claim after being exposed, then it should have been recorded as such on February 29th, 2016.
After the violation was exposed, a phone call is made to the state board of elections who provides a request for the campaign to revise the reporting.
Acklin’s campaign treasurer complied with the request by making the claim that the contribution was “verbally specified” that it was intended to be two $500.00 contributions. Any bets that the “verbally specified” contribution came after being exposed of the violation? If their claim is to be believed, why was it written for $1,000.00 and recorded as a single individual contribution in the first place?
The fact is, the payment was for $1,000.00 and was accepted and recorded as an individual contribution on February 29th, 2016. That payment put the individual contribution for this person over the legal limit. It got exposed. The campaign takes action to correct it, however, the letter clearly exposes concerns when compared to the paper trail.
It appears their focus to correct the financial side of the contribution left them exposed on the reporting of who actually made the contribution in the first place, and their own letter proves it.
“Cathy and Robert Morgan sent a $1,000 contribution and verbally specified that it was intended to be two $500 contributions from their joint account.”
By claiming it was two people who sent the money it points to improper reporting on February 29th, 2016.
A simple solution to this problem would have been to return the amount contributed over the limit with an explanation as to why it was returned. Had the contributors intent been to split the donation between their spouse, they could simply cut another check and send it to the campaign.
It’s always easier to simply tell the truth and not try to generate talking points or letters to elude to something as truth when in fact there are so many other factors that prove such action is disingenuous at best.
Not much different than claiming he was never accused of any failure to report Jamison’s activity, when in fact court records proved that to be a lie. (See this article for that exposure)
If such lack of attention to detail and non-compliance with our laws is happening now, what will happen if this person goes to Springfield as a Representative? My bigger question, when will people start vetting these types before dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into them? What does it tell us about those contributors?
An informed electorate is the only solution to fixing the laundry list of problems we face with our local government. Again, we urge you to review all of the information and make an informed decision when you cast your ballot in the upcoming election.
Please consider a donation to the Edgar County Watchdogs.
PattyPosted at 15:42h, 06 March
Oh ouch! Hey would that be PARIS Bob/Robert Morgan?
Kirk AllenPosted at 17:51h, 06 March
Yes, that is the Morgan’s in Paris
John Q. PublicPosted at 15:46h, 06 March
Well, hec – we’re in Edgar County. Who is going to do ANY thing to correct ANY act that is outside the law? (except you guys). Any person who makes frequent and large campaign contributions to various candidates should know the rules – or check on them before they compromise the process. Glad to see the State Board of Elections called them on it. Just keeping everyone on the straight and narrow is to be commended AND expected.
Cindy L ReesePosted at 03:35h, 09 March
Is this the same man who is the Paris “business man” referred to in Michale Callahan’s book “Too Politically Sensitive”? Hmmmm. Looks like Jimmy is aligning himself with some very unsavory people.
Kirk AllenPosted at 14:15h, 09 March
Yes, it is the same person.