This “Bush Math” appears to be the only kind of math that I have learned. Perhaps you should take a closer look at the accounting. The $34101.16 is listed as an offset to Operating Expenditures. This means it is a rebate or refund. This amount is added to the contribution amount. You really should make sure you are correct before you start talking about “Bush Math”. It really discredits everything you say.
This just posted as I did the last post, but let’s take a look at the fine report Kelly and apparently the Sean commenter
The problem is apparent when you read the summary, but only gets worse after that.
The summary lists $43,900 in contributions.
Then it lists $34101.16 in Total Offsets to Operating Expenditures
Then it lists -34,101.16 in Net Operating Expenditures
Magically, the Cash on Hand is $78,001.16
Care to explain the math Sean? I’d love to know that if you spent $34,101.16 and raised $43,900 you end up with more money than you raised. It reads like a Shrub Budget.
Refunds v. Returns
A refund occurs when the committee has actually deposited a contribution in its bank deposi- tory and then pays it back to the contributor by issuing a check. When a committee refunds a contribution to a donor, the committee must include the refund in the total for the ap- propriate category of refund on the Detailed Summary Page (Line 20(a), (b) or (c)). If the committee previously itemized the incoming contribution on Schedule A, then it must itemize the refund on a Sched- ule B for the appropriate category of refund. 104.8(d)(4). (See example, top right.) Alternatively, a committee may return a contribu- tion to the donor without depositing it, although the return must be made within 10 days of the treasurer?s receipt of the contribution. 103.3(
So again, it’s a little bit difficult to figure out how returning money actually increases your cash on hand unless the magical money tree in your backyard is producing cash pretty fast.
Rebates are money you get back on a purchase–so it’s kind of hard how that could almost be as much as Kelly raised since he reports not spending anything.
Most bizarrely, Kelly doesn’t report any disbursements. Funny. But when you look at his receipts you see all sorts of things that look like disbursements, but have been added together to be receipts.
walter wogtowicz apparently contributed $3500 for campaign fee and wages. Now, in some cases one might think that could be an inkind contribution (even though it breaks the limit), but there is no disbursement as you are supposed to report on the report for in-kind donations. In-Kind donations don’t add to your cash on hand, they add to receipts and they subtract from disbursements.
In his receipt category we find entries from corporations–illegal, refunds–by definition not a receipt, a sign company for $15,000–the limit for a primary campaign is $2,100 even for in-kind (though it’s most like a disbursement in receipts), and all sorts of goodies.
So, if the good commenter Sean would care to explain this to me and how the math is correct and how there aren’t violations of the law from a plain reading of the contributors, I’d love to hear it. But I’d especially love to know what I said that is incorrect and how I’ve been discredited. So have at is Sean.
I wonder why someone would take note of the post? hmmmmmm….
I really don’t have any clue what contributions were legal or illegal. My only point was the accounting or math itself is correct. Think about it, if you have a negative balance in say your credit card statement, that would mean you have a “credit” in your expense or expenditure account. While this amount is written as -$34000, you would actually add, not subtract that to your assets. This is how they get a positive number for cash on hand. While they don’t really classify what the offset is, that point was beyond my post. I wanted to bring attention to you that there is not an error in the math. Perhaps this error/crime is in the contributions or how they classified the offset to expenditures as a rebate or refund as you suggest. Since this is a politcally themed website I can see why you think I was attacking your position on the questionable contributions. Relax, I wasn’t. If really concerned about this and wish to bring it to what authority appropriate, I would leave out the part about the “Bush Math.”
You are truly a fucking idiot. Did you even read the citation to the law?
Dumbass, you cannot take in 43,900 and then spend $34,000 and have $78,000 on hand. It’s basic math.
You cannot count money that you spent as money as money you received. It’s pretty fucking basic.
=== While this amount is written as -$34000, you would actually add, not subtract that to your assets.
No, if you spend $34,000 you don’t add that to your assets. You subtract it from your assets. Black is, in fact, not white. The only refund listed is $500. But a refund in this case is a reduction in a candidates cash on hand because it goes back to a contributor.
Here is a breakdown of the math
a. $43,900 in contributions
b. $0 Operating expenditures
c. $34101.16 Total Offsets to Operating Expenditures
Subtract c from b to get net operating expenditures
d. -34,101.16 in Net Operating Expenditures (this is like the negative balance on the credit card)
subtract d. from a. and you get (because of the double negative, it’s addition):
$78,001.16
You are stunningly stupid. The ‘offsets’ aren’t refunds or rebates.
Read the fucking report, they spent $34,000 regardless of whether they put it in the wrong box or not. Cash on Hand, is cash on hand–the amount you have in a bank. This is very, very simple.
Woah, pyscho. Calm down. Take a deep breath. Does swearing make you feel better? Howabout calling me stupid? Good, then let it out. Do you realize what I am talking about? The only thing I am talking about is the math on the summary page. You really need to relax about this. If this is so illegal, tell somebody about it that will do something.
Waaaaaaaaaa….did you read the post above? It explains the point that the categorization is wrong as did the first post. Yet, you continue to spout about how the math is just correct. No, it is not. Adding something that should be subtracted is not doing the math correctly, yet you felt the need to try say it discredited everything I say.
If you take in $43,900 it is impossible to have $78,001 on hand. It’s not a hard point to grasp.
Seriously, then tell somebody about it. See what the IRS or whoever has to say about it. (You won’t because all you do is bitch about how corrupt everything is on your stupid website.) Or simply stop talking about how illegal it is and worry about your own state.
—iSee what the IRS
What site is the report on?