Jennifer Kim's Campaign Files Ethics Complaint Against Randi Shade

$300 cap per individual contributor (0.00 / 0)

Trying to run a city wide campaign with the individual contribution cap, the bundling rules, and the unlimited PAC money end runs promoting their endorsed slate of candidates is a cruel joke. Nobody benefits except the special interests.

Anybody have a city council candidate knock on their door to ask for their vote and to discuss their neighborhood issues?  

---

by: ssuits @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 22:27:53 PM CDT

I did it for one. (0.00 / 0)

Last weekend I blockwalked for Randi Shade. The candidates can't be everywhere, between the forums and endorsement meetings and various clubs. Randi's got great volunteers out and about on her behalf!  

---

by: kath25 @ Thu May 01, 2008 at 22:33:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes - Ken Weiss has knocked on doors (0.00 / 0)

Yes, Ken Weiss running in City Council Place 3 has knock on hundreds of doors and spoke about the issues with tons of citizens and neighbors!

Ken Weiss does not have special interests, toll roads, big business or developers backing, supporting or donating to him in any way!

The common average citizen supports and donates to his funds!

Sound like you are tired of the special interest groups getting what they want. Well, Ken Weiss is running to change that and put the power of government back into the every day common citizens hands!

Call him and personally speak with him the number is on the website and you can even meet him for a cup of coffee to talk about the issues! Wow, is right, he is willing to listen and speak with anyone about the issues and not many candidates running for City Council can say that!

Check out the website

weissforplace3.com

---

by: Austin.5000 @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:11:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

THAT was his name... (0.00 / 0)

When I went to vote yesterday, I was trying to remember what his name was and I couldn't. So I ended up voting for Jennifer.

On a lighter note, Randall's on Braker had some wicked good cherry muffins yesterday. If you're going to EV, that's where I'd head.

---

by: McBlogger @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:49:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I served on the 1994 task force that drafted the ordinance concerning bundling ... (3.67 / 3)

§ 2-2-14  FUNDRAISING AND BUNDLING BY INTERMEDIARIES.

    Candidates and officeholders shall include in their contribution and expenditure reports the name and address of any person who solicits and obtains contributions on their behalf, during a reporting period, of $100 or more per person from five or more individuals.  This disclosure requirement shall not apply to individuals who raise funds in an aggregate amount of $5,000 or less for a candidate or officeholder through a fundraising event in that individual's residence.

It's important to remember that Austin City Council campaign finances are regulated by a city ordinance passed in 1994 and the City Charter as amended in 1997 and 2006. The above quote is from the ordinance passed in 1994.

In 1994, our Campaign Finance Task Force realized that limiting the size of contributions would lead to firms "passing the hat" among co-workers and delivering large numbers of smaller checks. The practice was already common in federal elections in which contributions were limited to $1,000 per donor. We were not so much concerned with bundling per se but that this practice would reduce the public's ability to understand who are the major backers of any particular candidates. Our chief concern was that any cap on political contributions tends to lessen transparency.

The city ordinance passed in 1994 contains another provision to help increase transparency: a requirement that the occupation and employer of each donor of $250 or more be reported. The 1994 ordinance included a voluntary contribution limit of $500 per candidate with various incentives for a candidate to contractually obligate him or herself to this voluntary limit.

The 1994 ordinance was largely eclipsed by the 1997 charter amendment, which strictly limited contributions to $100 each. That wiped out the usefulness of the occupation/employer reporting requirement for the next decade.

In 2006, the Charter was amended to allow for a maximum contribution of $300 per person; the occupation/employer reporting requirement is, thus, a factor in this 2008 election, the first election since the Charter was last amended.

Since 1994, I have worked on the campaigns of three city candidates: Jackie Goodman, Kirk Watson and Robin Cravey. Each of their reports lists bundlers. In order to be able to report this information, the campaigns would keep track of any checks received in a batch and report the name of any person from whom five or more checks greater than or equal to $100 was received. It's really not that difficult to keep track of, and I think it's fair to expect candidates who want to pass laws governing the rest of us to be familiar with the city ordinances that apply to them.

Let me also say, though, that the City Clerk's office does not supply candidates with adequate information concerning campaign finance regulations, nor does the City Attorney's office provide any useful guidance. In contrast to the Texas Ethics Commission, which is particularly helpful in answering compliance questions that candidates and campaign staff have, the City Attorney's office provides no useful guidance. (Note to our new city manager: please fix this!)

The language pertaining to bundling is a reporting requirement for the candidate. Nor are the facts cited above prima facie evidence that bundling occurred. If the candidate herself solicited each contribution individually there is no reporting requirement. Also, if one person at Reagan advertising solicited three additional checks from co-workers, that does not fit the definition in the city ordinance.

In my experience, however, some bundling occurs in any serious council campaign. With such low contribution limits, it is just about impossible to raise an adequate amount of money without some "intermediaries" soliciting contributions on behalf of a candidate. The candidates, by and large, know who is doing such soliciting and they are the ones who are obligated to keep track of this and report it.

Finally, the ordinance includes a record-keeping requirement:

§ 2-2-30  RETENTION OF RECORDS.

    A candidate or officeholder subject to this chapter must maintain copies of checks, bank statements and deposit slips for a period of five years after the close of the reporting period to which such records are applicable.  These records must be made available to the Ethics Review Commission of the City, upon request within the five year retention period.  A knowing violation of this section is an offense.

An examination of such records would shed light on whether a candidate could reasonably be expected to know of such bundling activity. To the best of my knowledge, the city's Ethics Review Commission has never in the more than 13 years since the ordinance was passed asked to examine a candidate's records.

"The eyes of the people are fast opening! Fight on!"--Andrew Jackson

---

by: Al Stanley @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 00:11:52 AM CDT

Rande Shade and illegal funds (1.00 / 2)

I guess that makes two strikes against Randi Shade seeing how she already has been in the advertisement scandal!

Wow, I guess one more strike and your out!

It is so sad that Jennifer Kim and Randi Shade both have to engage in illegal activities to beat out the Truthful, Honest Candidate Ken Weiss.

Honesty, Integrity, Loyalty is what you will get from Ken Weiss has your next City Council Memeber for Place 3!

weissforplace3.com

---

by: Austin.5000 @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:16:48 AM CDT

This type of petty ethics filings against candidates (0.00 / 0)

loses more votes than it gains for the candidate doing it.  Seems like Jennifer is running scared.  I will be sure and cast my vote for Randi today.

Doing My Part For The Left,Left Of The Rainbow

---

by: refinish69 @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 06:44:46 AM CDT

Exactly... (0.00 / 0)

This filing was so predictable, is so frivolous, and so irrelevant to the issues.

---

by: TeamTexas @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:45:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, I voted this am at 7 (0.00 / 0)

I voted for Randi, Lee, and Robin for city council.  I also voted for Tim Mahoney(sp) for ACC.   I hope a lot more people turn out to vote and I hope everyone is emailing their friends and family about voti8ng!!!

Doing My Part For The Left,Left Of The Rainbow

---

by: refinish69 @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:03:15 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Desperation (3.00 / 1)

When you're an incumbent who should have coasted to re-election, I guess engaging in desperate and negative attacks against the challenger is your last resort.  But the voters won't be fooled by Kim's silly attacks.

How funny is it that the Statesman reported that Jennifer actually solicited the support of the business community, and then turned around to attack the same people she courted.  Just another classic Kim flip-flop.

Austin deserves better.  We need someone who shoots straight and can actually get along with other council members and get real results for Austin families.  

If you'd like to block-walk in South Austin for Randi this Saturday, then you're invited to join us for breakfast tacos as we spread the word about Randi's endorsement from the South Austin Democrats.

---

by: Ian @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:12:47 AM CDT

More Questions (3.00 / 3)

First, I work for the Kim Campaign.

Second, I have some questions. What does Randi have to hide? Why does the campaign feel above the law?

Randi threatened to file an ethics complaint for $14.80 because Kim didn't itemize a paypal charge.  How is $14.80 a legitimate complaint while a $16,500 violation a sign of desperation?

I try really hard not to write about the races at all on BOR, but some takes that silence as complacency. Last time I asked questions people put my home address and made threats, so we'll see what happens this time.

I think it is time we all played by the same set of rules.  Having been personally attack because of this race and now having a legitimate ethics violation being treated like business as usual is scary.  Like many Austinites, I look forward to May 10th.

---

by: Matt Glazer @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:37:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

More Answers (0.00 / 0)

This ethics complaint smacks of desperation, and seems unsupported by any facts.

It appears that Randi has nothing to hide, she accurately reported contributions to her city council campaign.  The fact that some of her contributors are employed in the same place does not mean that the contributions were bundled.

If there are other facts I'm missing, please bring them to my attention and I'll happily re-evaluate.

Nothing about that leads me to believe she feels as though she is above the law.  

---

by: pol_wol @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 13:00:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Crossings (0.00 / 0)

Will Jennifer Kim be taking her campaign staff to The Crossings for a "rest and relaxation" retreat after the election at taxpayer expense?

Has she given y'all one of 20 copies of "Discover Your Strengths" that she bought with our tax dollars?

Does she sign your checks with the $59 pens she charged to the city?

---

by: Jobu @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 15:53:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

send me your address (0.00 / 0)

so i can post it, matt.  i lost it when i got a new phone.

---

by: colin @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 17:50:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not so much for blockwalking... (0.00 / 0)

at least not for Randi. But, can I have a breakfast taco anyway? Chorizo, egg and cheese would be fab. Maybe a bloody?

How does 1:15 sound?

---

by: McBlogger @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:46:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

update (4.00 / 2)

Apparently, the complaint did have some merit and the Shade campaign will issue a correction in today's report.

Shade's campaign said not listing four bundlers on the last campaign report was an honest mistake. They will be reported on the next round of reports, due today, along with two other bundlers.

http://www.statesman.com/news/...

UPDATE: Oops! In Fact Daily reports Shade has copped to a bundling oversight:

   Shade campaign comptroller Susan Harry issued a statement Thursday night, saying "It was an honest oversight on the part of our campaign. We determined this afternoon that we had four people who met the criteria of a bundler in the last reporting cycle, and we will be amending that report tomorrow. We will also be reporting two new bundlers in our new report, due tomorrow."

http://www.austinchronicle.com...

I'm a Kim supporter and voter (though I harbor no malice towards Shade and look forward to working with whomever wins the seat).  To me, it appears like the complaint process worked as it should have.  Opposing campaign closely reads over the records, spots a potential abnormality and reports it.  Either the "offending" campaign or the ethics review board investigates and comes to a conclusion.  Citizens view the process and make up their minds based on the evidence.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 13:10:49 PM CDT

solution (0.00 / 0)

i've got it all figured out:

which ever offense/oversight (robocalls or missing forms)carries the greatest punishment loses.

sounds like a not-well-though-out strategy to attack someone for getting support from folks you solicited.

shade must really be closing in on a win or kim would be able to fall back on "look at the great job i've done on x,y,z".

---

by: colin @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 17:55:20 PM CDT