Press "Enter" to skip to content

FEC Questioning Mike Rounds Campaign Finance Report

It's not plagiarism; it's hyperlinked satire! (Now why does that sound familiar?)

The Federal Elections Commission is taking a harder look at US Senate Candidate Marion Michael Rounds’s Campaign Finance Report according to a December 5th letter from the FEC to Barbara Everist, Treasurer of Rounds for Senate.

Why does this sound familiar?

In the letter, the FEC is requesting the campaign to itemize the travel expenses for which the campaign reimbursed Mike Rounds $38,800:

Schedule B of your report discloses reimbursements to individuals for the following travel-related disbursement(s): "Travel Reimbursement." When the reimbursement amount to individuals for travel and subsistence advances exceeds $500, the payments by staff to any one vendor that make up the reimbursement may have to be itemized. For example, if the related payments to any one vendor aggregate in excess of $200 for the election cycle, the staff advance payment to the vendor must also be itemized in a memo entry for that reimbursement. Each memo entry must include the complete name and address of the original vendor, as well as the date, amount, and detailed purpose of the advance. If itemization is not necessary for a particular reimbursement to staff in excess of $500, you must indicate so in an amendment to this report. Please amend your report to include the missing or clarifying information. See Advisory Opinion 1996-20 for additional clarification. (11 CFR § 104.9) [Ryan Furman, campaign finance analyst, Federal Election Commission, letter to Rounds for Senate campaign, 2013.12.05].

Mike Rounds... travel expenses... why does this sound familiar?

The FEC doesn’t seem to have much of a sense of humor about it, either, as they note if they don’t get a response, they are going to contemplate an audit of the campaign’s finances.

Why does this sound familiar?

I reached out to the Rounds campaign last night to see if they had a response to the FEC correspondence, but to this point they’ve maintained radio silence. The only response I did get to the campaign inquiry…

[chirp chirp chirp]

If and when I do see a response, I’ll provide it.

But as it sits, the FEC has questions, and nobody’s responding at the moment...

Why does this sound familiar?

* * *

Disclaimer: To be absolutely clear for those on whom good satire is lost: yes, I copied much of the above text from Pat Powers, "FEC Questioning Stace Nelson Campaign Finance Report," Dakota War College, 2013.12.09. I copy and paste Pat's words not to falsely represent them as my own original creation for my own benefit but to make a point about the complete failure of journalism and honesty on Pat's blog.

30 Comments

  1. Rick 2013.12.11

    Do you mean "Bill Clay's blog"? It's as authentic as he has personally made it. Pity.

  2. Bob Mercer 2013.12.11

    So is the FEC questioning the Rounds campaign about this or not?

  3. Bob Mercer 2013.12.11

    I clicked on the hyperlink and found the letter, which I assume is authentic. If it is, then that answers my question.

  4. Disgusted Dakotan 2013.12.11

    If there was ever a doubt that Powers was a paid campaign staff member for Marion Mike Rounds, his obvious and intentional ignoring of this FEC letter (while going out of his way to highlight the lesser one on Nelson), shows he is more than biased.

  5. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.12.11

    Authentic? It's straight from the FEC's website.

  6. John Tsitrian 2013.12.11

    Cory: Hard to determine the magnitude of this oversight without getting a sense of how much money is involved. Breaking out payments to relevant vendors should be as easy as pulling the info out of an ordinary check register. As you so classically put it in another post "Occamizing" this thing makes me think it's a minor oversight. Nelson's boo-boo in not identifying the source of $18k+ is quite a bit more egregious, both in terms of oversight and not being bright enough to figure out that an unidentified source of that much money would get some immediate attention.

  7. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.12.11

    Pat Powers catches up and takes the position that when the FEC asks Rounds for clarification, it's nitpicking. But when the FEC questions Nelson, it's serious stuff. Rules are rules, for all candidates. Nelson need to tell us where he got his money. Rounds needs to tell us how he spent all that travel money to justify putting $38,880 in his own pocket.

  8. Rorschach 2013.12.11

    The report is too long and my computer too slow. I wonder if Rounds is renting his own airplane and having his contributors pay him to do that?

  9. Jenny 2013.12.11

    $38,880 is an awful lot of money just for travel expenses. That's more than most working class South Dakotans make in a year. Is he buying dinner for his GOP friends and family and putting it on the Campaign tab? Is this just travel in SD or off to other states for fundraising?

  10. Douglas Wiken 2013.12.11

    Another reminder that Don Frankenfeld's idea makes sense. All campaigns must use a state fund with complete transparency and current data rather than "private" bank accounts.

  11. Disgusted Dakotan 2013.12.11

    Powers has been deleting posts as quick as his biased little hands can punish the keys.

  12. owen reitzel 2013.12.11

    hell Powers won't even post anything from me. What a guy

  13. Mark 2013.12.11

    My goodness gracious, no wonder he doesn't have time to attend certain joint appearances or debates, with all that travel and all.

  14. Q 2013.12.11

    Owen, I seem to be banned also. Yet Julie Gross (NE) spews forth. Oh well; the Pierre Pravda continues to become even more pathetic (a surprise, as one could assume it hit bottom a long time ago).

  15. interested party 2013.12.11

    If the Benda-gate players were Dems PP would be having a cow.

  16. owen reitzel 2013.12.11

    The thing is Q if i was swearing or being beligerent then I'd understand. But I've made decent coments and ask normal question. Oh well

  17. Q 2013.12.11

    I will admit to being...obnoxious, perhaps. But only in trying to show the editorial double standard. Nothing vulgar. Perhaps calling Julie Gross "Buffalo Bill" (like Silence of the Lambs) offended PP's delicate sensibilities.

  18. Bree S. 2013.12.11

    Love the disclaimer, Cory.

  19. Ken Santema 2013.12.11

    If I gave awards to blogs in South Dakota I would give this particular post a top contender in the satire category.
    Pure gold!

  20. Roger Cornelius 2013.12.11

    And Rounds just groaned a sigh of relief,

    Jackley will not all reporters to look at the investigative report on the Benda murder case.

  21. Douglas Wiken 2013.12.11

    Pierre got money from China, and everything that was ever rotten in Denmark.

  22. Roger Cornelius 2013.12.11

    $38,800 is equal to the $5,000 double billing Jackley accused Benda of. It's nothing.

    Let's talk about the real money. Where did Rounds get that $9-$12 Million war chest. How much came from the Northern Beef Packers fiasco?

  23. grudznick 2013.12.11

    That's a scary note Mr. Cornelius. Does Rounds have $9 million already and Mr. H hasn't even blogged about it, and if Rounds has $9 million where did it come from? Did this beef packing plant get $9 million from Rounds's office and then turn around and donate $9 million to Rounds's campaign through some heinous underground method that bypasses Mr. Gant's checks and balances? You pose good questions.

  24. Roger Cornelius 2013.12.11

    grudz,

    It has been widely reported that Rounds has more money than any other senatorial candidate, Mr. H doesn't need to blog on it. In fact I probably read it here on Madville.

  25. grudznick 2013.12.11

    But $9,000,000 dollars in American cash? That seems obscene that Mr. Rounds has that much. One of these sleuths would have produced one of those reports that show that stuff. Mr. H could knock that out of the park

  26. grudznick 2013.12.11

    But you are right, Mr. Cornelius, that Mr. Nelson and Dr. Bos have far less cash and cache than Mr. Rhoden, and probably Mr. Rounds as well.

  27. Disgusted Dakotan 2013.12.11

    If you had not ran this story, Powers would have happily kept it buried for his master. His fake outrage about being called out for being so obviously biased is hilarious.

    Is there anyone that thinks Powers is not fully in the bag for Rounds?

  28. Tara Volesky 2013.12.12

    Hey everybody, talking about Pat Powers protecting Mike Rounds and falsely going after Kathy Tyler and Stace Nelson, also not reporting on the EB-5 and all the other scandals that could involve Rounds. Don't blame Pat, that's his job. Blame the guy that's paying him to intimidate, lie, keeping the EB-5 covered up. Folks, that's called SD politics and they have been getting away with criminal behavior for years. So it is going to be up to the people of SD to ethical leaders. What's sad is most people don't know or don't care or have just given up. All I can say is we need to WAKE UP! With all the scandals and cover-ups during the Rounds and Daugaard administrations....if they win....then what does that tell you about the people of SD. And we talk about Chicago politics. I think this is worse.

  29. Roger Cornelius 2013.12.12

    Tara,

    You're right about Rounds and Powers, but the pressure has to stay on both.

    I have been increasingly disappointed in state and national media for not giving this scandal the intense scrutiny it deserves.

    Also, the state and national Democratic Party have been relatively quiet on this. I don't know what they are waiting for.

  30. caheidelberger Post author | 2013.12.12

    Pierre Pravda... I like that!

Comments are closed.