Lunsford Discloses Huge Assets; Where's Fischer's Form?

W. Bruce Lunsford has filed his candidate financial disclosure report with the United States Senate Office of Public Records. It's a glimpse into the world of the rich who want to be famous. Greg Fischer, in contrast, appears to have missed the April 20th deadline, in yet another violation of the laws governing candidates for federal office.

We anxiously await to see whether Fischer's disclosure form was lost in the mail. As a candidate for federal office who does not file annually, the Ethics in Government Act required Fischer to file his financial disclosure form 30 days before the primary, that is, April 20th. If Fischer fails to file the form, he is subject to a fine or even referral to the Department of Justice.

It's just one form out of many that candidates must file, and yet it reveals the difference between the two men, or at least their campaigns.

Lunsford signed and dated his form April 17, 2008 (three days early) and took no chances on it arriving late; he sent it via UPS Next Day Air -- in which he has invested.

At this point, nothing jumps out from Lunsford's form except that he is very, very rich. The diversity of his investments is also striking. The man owns interests in everything from the frivolous -- races horses, film-making companies, amusement parks --to more conventional assets -- real estate, mutual funds and health care-related companies.

Whereas many of us have one mortgage, Lunsford has many, scattered around the country. And whereas many of us have mutual funds or savings accounts, Lunsford has interests in limited liability corporations and limited partnerships -- just page after page of assets. That includes many funds with Goldman Sachs; these appear to be the sort limited to high net worth individuals.

Not to incite any class warfare, but as I place my $ 2 bet on the Derby, I will think of Lunsford, who valued his thoroughbred horses at between $5 million to $ 25 million. That's a lot of horse flesh.

Fischer, on the other hand, is the horse who couldn't get loaded into the starting gate.

Greg Fischer Violates FEC Law (Again)

Greg Fischer appears to have violated Federal Election law yet again. Fischer, who wants to run as the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, has released a television ad that appears to clearly violate FEC rules.

Federal candidates are required to state in their TV ads that the candidate approved the ad's message. Fischer's tag line, at the end of his ad, does not follow the FEC rules.

The FEC gives the candidate two options to indicate he approved the TV ad, but Fischer still failed to comply with either alternative.

Fischer could have met the FEC requirements by simply appearing on camera and stating that he approved the ad. But he did not. Or he could have said the words as a voice over, that is Fischer takes responsibility for the ad on the audio track while the camera shows a shot of Fischer kissing babies or whatever. He didn't bother to follow that prong of the rule, either.

Likewise, Fischer's ad violates the requirement that the disclaimer appear in writing at the ad, with enough color contrast that voters can notice it, for at least four seconds. Fischer does include a written disclaimer, but it flashes by almost as quickly as the subliminal messages in the Beatles's music he plays in the background.

Fischer's campaign has a history of sloppy compliance with campaign law. He conducted campaign business using a corporate email account -- essentially an illegal corporate contribution. He used corporate underlings to register domain sites for his campaign. And he exceeded the $5000 spending limit without declaring his candidacy.

Given that Fischer enjoys a paltry six percent approval rating in the polls, maybe it makes no difference.

Update: Fischer's approval rating has inched up to nine percent. Perhaps he's waiting to obey the election laws until he breaks into double digits.

Five Thousand, Five Million -- It's All the Same to Fischer

Page One, the blog on which Andrew Horne announced his candidacy, has been bird-dogging Greg Fischer about apparent violations of federal campaign law. Even the Courier Journal noticed when the Republicans filed a complaint about Fischer's alleged violations. In fact, the violations appear to be even more egregious than Page One originally reported.

The issue turns on whether Fischer's campaign crossed the $ 5,000 threshold -- the point at which Fischer was required to declare his candidacy. As one might expect from a millionaire, Fischer did not pinch pennies in launching his campaign.

Page One notes that Fischer's spending -- before he announced -- necessarily included:

time used registering domain names, negotiating hosting contracts, working with web developers, recruiting staff, receiving and managing email. All activities which take a lot of time and would require quite a bit of reimbursement for employee wages on top of equipment usage. Also included in that $5,000 mark would be all travel expenses for Fischer’s trips to Washington, D.C. and around the state of Kentucky, as he’s apt to mention.

Actually, the list of expenses is even longer. Fischer obviously has used political consultants, such as his spokesperson Kim Gevedon. Those consultant fees count towards the $5,000 spending threshold.

Likewise for Fischer's website, which was designed by the Democrat web firm NGP Software. (Oddly, that's the same firm Andrew Horne uses -- what a conflict of interest). A web site like Fischer's costs approximately $7,500 to launch. In addition, Fischer's web page includes several custom elements, such as his logo and the flag picture, that would cost extra money.

Fischer's website also reflects the extensive use of professional photography, which is expensive in and of itself. In addition, the campaign would need to buy the copyright from the photographer, who typically retains it.

That tediously long video on Fischer's website, moreover, would have cost thousands of dollars to produce.

When all this is added together, it becomes clear that Fischer blew past the $5,000 threshold that triggered the requirement for him to file with the Secretary of the Senate and the FEC. Indeed, just the web site put him over the limit.

Once Fischer fell within the ambit of federal election law, he was precluded from accepting corporate donations. As Page One initially reported, Fischer began running his campaign using his corporation, Dant-Clayton, and its employees. That constitutes a corporate donation.

It's hard to square Fischer's violations of such basic rules with his promise to "fix Washington" with his business savvy and professionalism. So far, his candidacy looks pretty amateur.

More Fischer FEC Violations?

Greg Fischer, one of the rich guys who has been flirting with running for U.S. Senate, apparently continues to violate federal campaign law, even before he has made his candidacy official.

Page One reports that Fischer has been using one of his corporate underlings to buy up domain sites, which potentially constitutes an illegal corporate contribution, unless Fischer reimburses the corporation for the employee's time.

I can't say whether this constitutes an FEC violation. It is troubling, however, that a left-leaning blog has so characterized it. It would be better for the Commonwealth of Kentucky if Fischer could run a legal, competent campaign. That way we could beat him on the issues as opposed to discussing all the distractions he continues to create.