From comments here:
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
Here is the FEC report
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.
Sean’s comment about refunds and rebates is especially curious when you look at the definition of refund
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….
ArchPundit