What's Matt Look given? After all, he's one of the three on the county board who, as Randy Backous has pointed out, lives and has a home-based business in Ramsey. He prints political signs. What do you suppose he gave?
The crux of concern is this screen capture from a campaign financial disclosure filed with the City:
 |
| click the image to enlarge and read |
Yup. $275 reported for the Buchholz campaign signs. Only that. A low-ball cost, for certain. Something inspiring normal curiosity as to detail, begging for an answer or answers.
SO - This is a tale told well by email. Parallel threads:
.....................................
Email between Eric Zaetsch and Wayne Buchholz.
Z to WB: Wayne/Maria Buchholz:
Before posting anything where there might be a simple explanation, it is fair to ask if there is one.
See attached. Only $275 reported for signage.
The number/size of signs around town suggests more was paid or the sign printer gave a contribution in kind, either way, not reported.
If the campaign itself started before the filing window, with signs printed in anticipation of running, it's a campaign expense, and the reporting window should reflect the actual time the campaign was in operation.
Or if you believe that wrong, please let me know in detail, why.
Otherwise, I see reporting of $275, many, many signs, and the $275 appears to be largely the cost of adding the stars. [...]
WB to Z: The reason my signs cost is what it is, there was an error in the printing. If you remember the last time I ran my signs were orange the printer printed my new signs red. Instead of reprinting he sold them to me at cost. The stars won't show up until my next report which is due 10 days before the elections.
But maybe you should be asking Ms Williams why she has not reported any cost for signs, when she had her large signs up long before her first report was due! They all read that she paid for them.
Z to WB: Thanks. But you paid for the orange signs? Or not? Was that cost forgiven? Should you investigate whether an in kind contribution should be reported if the sign printer gave you a discount, concession, whatever?
WB to Z: There is no in kind, the printer screwed up. That's on him, I could of been an ass and made him redo the whole order in orange, but I let it go and accepted the color. But you still didn't answer me about Kristine, did Santa Claus pay for all her signs both large and small?
[follow-up email from Z] Ms. Williams
I inquired about sign costs of the Buchholz campaign. Below is the reply.
I address this question to you for the reason I have not reviewed your campaign disclosure filings, but the implications of the Buchholz response to me is that you have not reported ANY sign expenses. Would you confirm whether or not this is so, and if so, would you explain the situation in a reply email?
[follow-up email reply to Z from Williams] I have reported expenses for small yard signs in my last filing. We did not receive the invoice for the large signs until late last month and the invoice was only recently paid. That is why the expenses for large signs have not yet been reported.
Thank you for reaching out to me for more explanation.
Z to WB: Kris Williams. I do not know. I sent her an email. I await a reply.
Matt, isn't he usually error-free?
WB to Z: Eric, I don't have time to be playing your games, I answered your question, and everyone makes errors including you. I will be waiting for your reply on Ms. Williams. I don't read your blog, so I hope you spelled my name correctly and include Ms Williams missing reports.
Z to WB: Yeah. Sure. If you don't read it somebody can tell you about it. Or not. The spelling is Wayne, with an "e" right?
WB to Z: - no reply -
.....................................
next sequence - Z to Matt Look: There was some confusion because Nathan L. wore the one red tee shirt with the God judges text on the back, and then Wayne used red tee shirts in campaigning. Was he originally intending to use orange tee shirts?
ML to Z - two items: 1- "Ask him" 2- "I think he switched to red after we printed the wrong color for his signs....he'd have to confirm"
Z to ML: Thanks Matt.The shirts were done after the signs then. If it ever came to having to check your records I am sure timing would be there. That color thing, that's not a frequent error for you is it? It's not careful.
Too many irons in the fire at the time?
ML to Z: I work with up to 75 campaigns a year. Mistakes happen more than I like
Z to ML: I guess add in County business, it's a very full plate. The County stuff you do not want mistakes there. For sure.
ML to Z: Yes full plate....county being a part time job. We have excellent staff at the county and a great board. Everything is vetted well for sure
Z to ML: And keeping up with facebook, events.
ML to Z: - no reply -
.....................................
Z follow-up to WB: What's the story on the tee shirts? Orange wanted there too? Willing to take red?
Matt emailed I should ask you.
WB to Z: - no reply -
.....................................
So, a screw-up, purportedly so; ostensibly leading to a massive discount, i.e., whereas Abigale Whelan paid Look $1700 for signs - yard signs - Wayne paying only $275 for as many or more - yard size and larger - which is a fifteen hundred dollar difference.
That big a discount, and the claim is there was no in kind contribution, Look discounting, in kind, to the Buchholz campaign, via such a massive price differential despite wholly merchantable signs were delivered and used; $1500 being attributed, ostensibly, to red/orange stuff.
That's the story; with no real answer as to tee shirts.
.....................................
A reader thought experiment. Find fifteen hundred dollars difference:
Where's fifteen hundred dollars worth of difference?
It's there.
The emails say so.
Gotta trust the emails.
----
(We don't have an answer from Buchholz as to tee shirts.)
In general, politicians should stay out of each other's election contests. That is the seemly thing to do. And when comingling, scrupulous record keeping is necessary especially as to in kind easily lost disclosure/reporting facts.
And if that massive discount on fully merchantable signs is not an in kind contribution, Look on the County Board to the Buchholz municipal campaign, pigs can fly.
__________UPDATE___________
In fairness, I requested copies of Kris Williams' disclosure filings with the city, from the city clerk, who emailed a four page pdf doc response. What I see there as listed expenses; campaign kickoff fund raiser, and Hello neighbor mailing. If there was any sign reporting in the four pages sent me from the city, I missed it. If signs are being funded separately by an entity per Citizens United independent of Ms. Williams, that would be in a separate reported item, from such a committee/entity independent of the Williams campaign - one with which she - her campaign - properly should not be coordinating things. People not running for office can participate in posting signs as best as I understand campaign law, being neither a lawyer in Minnesota nor having particularized knowledge of campaign requirements. "All they're saying is hooray for our side," etc. I expect Ms. Williams in email may have casually "misspoke" in writing "we" in her email if signs were being posted and reported by an independent entity of some kind. All that is for Wayne's World to unravel, if he and Maria and campaign volunteer Nathan care. First thing, he or somebody should look at the disclosure footer on Williams signs, to see who states "Paid for ..." info there.Then he should assure himself of having copies of any/all disclosure filings with the city. Nathan can run the errands.
Independent expenditure without limits might not appeal to some readers, but blame the system nationwide, the two party stranglehold on politics, and the ever-present lobbyists mucking around for that. Do not blame any local campaign, Wayne's or Kris's. Indeed, blame the framers of the Constitution. They added ten original amendments [and that's ten Amendments NOT commandments, something that has to be noted for some who are confused]. The first of the original amendments includes rights of political speech. Campaign finance disclosure is subordinate to First Amendment rights of those independently aiming to influence political matters as persons/entities apart from candidate campaigns. Legislation can require such independent outlet speech to report and disclose if their speech is election related, but it cannot constitutionally close off the right.
___________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Do you suppose Wayne's got available iron-on stars, for the tee shirts?
___________FURTHER UPDATE___________
I contacted Kris Williams by email, and she responded:
The "we" I was referring to was me and my campaign treasurer whom I have entrusted to understand the ins and outs of the finance report filing process. I mistakenly failed to consult with him before responding to your email and assumed the sign expenses were reported in the last filing. I have since confirmed the yard-sign invoice was not available prior to the last filing date and both invoices for sign expenses will be included in the next finance report. I am not aware of any signs that were paid for by an independent entity.
That seems to pretty much wrap up the Buchholz concerns. Invoices available were reported. Await the next filing. There is no independent effort on her behalf known to Williams.
I see no problems unless she got her signs all for $275 or less. That would be a hoot. Dueling discounts.
Don't expect it. My guess is she paid a full and fair price - the going rate - invoiced and paid. Presumably Buchholz will be monitoring Williams reporting. I won't. If he sees something he does not like he can write a comment.
P.S. Williams -- Color her signs green. And I bet that's what she wanted from the start. No obfuscating from the Williams camp, presumably, and the invoices shall be reported for what they are. So ends the story told in email.