A good friend of the FlashReport, an attorney who does a lot of reporting compliance work, offered the following observation on this flap over the Chief Justice being the victim of a "drive by reporting…"
I could see how an incorrect occupation/employer would end up listed on a campaign report. Our firm prepares dozens of these reports per filing period, and for a committee as large as Hillary’s, the recordkeeping is astronomical. In an attempt to comply with reporting requirements, we often resort to google when we can’t reach a donor to obtain their address (in CA has to be a street address), occupation and employer. If we find a match that appears accurate, we go with it. Especially at the CA level, there is no “best efforts” rule like there is at the federal level – in CA, if you don’t obtain the street address, occupation and employer, the contribution has to be returned. At the federal level, the committee need only show that it made its “best efforts” to obtain the information, and can keep the contribution in the absence of the information being collected – so there’s less of a reason to resort to google at the federal level.
I could see someone doing data entry for a fundraiser for Hillary googling “Ron George” “San Francisco” and coming up with the Chief Justice as an occupation/employer.
Just a thought.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:00 am
A logical explanation. Any campaign treasurer is scrambling against deadlines to obtain occupation and employer info, even when the person is known but the name of a company or address need to be verified. In a “best effort” case, the name that would come up in a search wouldn’t be Ron the salesman.
February 1st, 2010 at 12:00 am
True, but while that works for “salesman”, “mechanic”, or “attorney”, I think if I was wildly guessing at someone’s identity, I’d actually check before listing them as “Chief Justice, California Supreme Court!”
You sure we can’t imprison Hillary instead of Ron for this?
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
If you can’t trust the Federal Election Commission and the Hillary Clinton for President Campaign, really, who can you trust?
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
How about this for “just a thought” — apologize.
You smeared the Chief Justice without bothering to confirm the charges you made.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
Actually Steve, I would think it more accurate to say that the Clinton Campaign smeared the Chief Justice, that the mainstream media failed to do any story on her campaign reports in 2008 which would have uncovered this, and that Jon again raised an issue that should have been raised 18 months ago.
February 2nd, 2010 at 12:00 am
Bill, thanks for taking time on the taxpayer dime to comment. PRA forthcoming.
In the meantime, read Barry’s comment above.
As a fellow blogger, I know I’d apologize if I screwed up big time like Jon did. He knows better. He should do the same.