Turner Fails Filing For Third Time
“Bob Turner’s unwillingness or inability to comply with federal law continues. Today, Republican Bob Turner again showed willful disregard for federal election law by not filing the appropriate paperwork by the Federal Election Commission’s stated deadline of Friday, October 15,” says a spokesperson for Congressman Anthony Weiner, who is opposing Turner in the upcoming November 2 election.
“This is the latest incident in a growing pattern of campaign filing discrepancies which have denied voters in Brooklyn and Queens their legal right to know who funds Republican Bob Turner and how he spends his campaign cash,” Weiner’s spokesperson said. “The October quarterly financial disclosure filing was due 3 days ago, and though the Turner campaign had fifteen days to prepare their paperwork they have still not filed it with the FEC. The FEC could fine Turner nearly $14,000 for this violation of the law.”
“Bob Turner’s wanton disregard for Federal Election law defies reason,” the spokesman added. “Is he a successful businessman who can’t manage his own money or is he a guy who wants to go to Congress to make laws that he isn’t capable of following?”
This is the third time in a month that Bob Turner has had a problem with the Federal Election Commission.
On September 21, 2010 the FEC sent his campaign a request for additional information, asking him to clarify missing information from an earlier filing (July quarterly report). In addition, he omitted nearly every single expenditure and contribution on the very next financial disclosure (pre-primary filing).
In part, that request said, “This letter is prompted by the Commission’s preliminary review of the report(s) referenced above. This notice requests information essential to full public disclosure of your federal election campaign finances. Failure to adequately respond by the response date noted above could result in an audit or enforcement action.”
The letter cited incomplete information about those who contributed to the campaign, including in many cases the name of the person and his/her occupation.
In addition, the letter cited expenditures with no address of those to whom the money was paid and why the expense was necessary.
The campaign’s disclosure documents also noted a number of loans to the candidate that were supposed to be paid on January 31, 2010, nearly a year ago. There is no indication, the letter says, as to whether they were paid or the loan conditions.
Under the law, an unpaid loan from the candidate’s personal funds can be considered to be a contribution from the candidate to himself.
The letter added that the campaign must make a “best effort” to get the missing information or explain the process they were using and why it was not forthcoming.