Elephant Ears

This blog is dedicated to the political happenings in the Valley and Southwest Virginia. As the the name implies, this blog will have posts based on what is heard by this elephant's (GOPer's) ears. It is also a great treat to get while at the county fair or a carnival.

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

27th Senate GOP Primary is Over: Results Pending

Charges have now been levied that "Mark Tate is under intense criminal investigation for serious campaign finance fraud", which was first reported on VCAP's blog Conservative V.O.I.C.E. As you probably already know, VCAP has endorsed Tate's opponent; Jill Holtzman-Vogel in the 27th District. Jill is also a board member of VCAP.

Then today NLS linked the VCAP story and told us that Va GOP Chair Ed Gillespie called Tate and asked him to withdraw from the race "If these charges were true". NLS also says the charges were levied by a Holtzman-Vogel supporter to State Board of Elections and was then referred to the Loudoun County Commonwealth's Attorney (who is also a Holtzman-Vogel supporter).

If Tate is actually found guilty of these charges; it is safe to say that Holtzman-Vogel will win the nomination (in fact Tate will likely withdraw). Conversely, if Tate is found to be innocent of these charges; there will be serious questions then levied on Holtzman-Vogel's campaign, who look to be at every turn in this saga. I am not suggesting Jill planted or had anything to do with this story, but alot of the facts will point to her.
From what I see, if Tate is exonerated of these charges or they do not exist; Holtzman-Vogel will likely face the brunt of a massive backfire that will probably doom her candidacy.

posted by GOPHokie @ 5:48 PM  

9 Comments:

  • At 5/02/2007 9:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "intense criminal investigation"

    Define that, please.

    If he simply made accounting errors then that's one thing....if he used campaign money for something else then that's another.

    I think the issue is two-fold;

    1) Tate made some accounting errors....he incorrectly carried over balances, etc.

    2)Holtzman-Vogel is trying to create a story for a race that essentially has had NONE in the local press.....or she has seen a poll or two and it didn't look good for her so she has resorted to this sort of thing.....

    I guess we'll see.

     

  • At 5/03/2007 7:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This story has been out since last summer when Mark paid his fines. I have a feeling this is going to backfire on Holtzman big time.

     

  • At 5/03/2007 9:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I expect to see some info on Jill's past campaign finance flops. Those in glass houses...

     

  • At 5/03/2007 12:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Below is a list of alleged campaign finance violations stemming from Mark Tate’s filing history:

    The disappearance of more than $110,000 from campaign funds reported in 2003, the loss of which remains unaccounted for;
    Loans in the amount of $75,000 wrongly reported and potentially unsupported by true funds;
    The disappearance of nearly $115,000 in debt on reports filed between July 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006 , with no required debt repayment;
    Initial failure to disclose any donor information as required by law involving approximately 81 alleged donations totaling nearly $70,000 in cash; and
    Failure to file any disclosure reports for three consecutive years.
    Below is a more detailed explanation of the alleged violations of law:

    Loans

    July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 - On Schedule E, Tate lists a $4,000 loan from himself dated June 20, 2006 . On Schedules G and H of the same report, this $4,000 loan is reported as a $40,000 loan. The “available funds” and “contributions received” figures are therefore falsely inflated.
    January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006 - No Schedule E was filed. A loan of $75,000 is reported on Schedule H but you can’t find who gave him the money because no there is no Schedule E. According to an article in The Winchester Star ( 7/19/06 ), “Tate said the loan was made to him by his friend Brian Brooks, who is involved with real estate investments.” The Northern Virginia Daily ( 7/20/06 ) states, “(Tate) reported more than $100,000 in donations and a matching six-figure war chest to the State Board of Elections on Monday. (Attachment 4)
    A total of $40,000 plus new loans ($75,000) subtotals $115,000, minus loans repaid of zero, with a loan balance of $15,000. $115,000 minus zero does not equal $15,000.
    July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 - $115,000 in loans (with no repayments on this report or any previous report) is reported on Schedule G as a loan with a balance of $115.00, dropping $100,000 of the loan amount. Again, the “available funds” and “contributions received” are misleading.
    It looks like zeros were dropped from the loan balance to reduce the appearance of debt, but at the same time, the $115,000 debt amount was reported as contributions received.
    Leesburg Today (8/3/06) reported, “Tate has $190,000 on hand, thanks to a $75,000 loan from Bryant Brooks, of Middleburg, and a $40,000 loan Tate gave himself in June 2005.”
    The absence of donor information and improper characterization of loans casts doubt on all of his campaign finance reports.
    Donors

    Tate didn’t file a Schedule A with reports filed for July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005 . A Schedule A would provide names and addresses of the five contributors who allegedly gave him $12,800 according to Schedule G of this same report.
    This type of error calls into question all recordkeeping. Tate has either misrepresented the amount received or the number of donors is falsely reported. In either case, he has not properly disclosed donor information.
    Money on hand

    On Schedule H of the May 28, 2003 report, Tate reports an ending balance of $79,364.10. However, on Schedule H of the May 29 - June 30, 2003 report, he shows a beginning balance of zero. What happened to the $79,000? However, on Schedule H of the May 29 – June 30, 2003 report, he shows a beginning balance of zero. What happened to the $79,000?
    So he started with a balance of zero, received $24,219 in contributions, made $93,425.12 in expenditures and then reports a positive ending balance of $69,026.12. This makes no sense! This figure is false and inflated, and is actually a negative balance with a substantial outstanding debt.
    Setting aside the questionable balance, the $69,026.12 should be carried over to the next reporting period as the beginning balance. However, Tate shows a beginning balance on the next report of $37,061. That leaves the question of what happened to the $32,000?

     

  • At 5/03/2007 3:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'd be surprised if Jill hasn't completely lost the race now. I think it was pretty even until she pulled this stunt. So much for Reagan's 11th commandment. Getting so desperate that they are willing to resort to parking tickets and math errors shows how far behind they must be. Everyone in campaigns knows that you don't do this unless you're WAY behind. I'd say this is a "hail mary" on the part of the Jill Holtzman Vogel campaign.

     

  • At 5/03/2007 4:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Anonymous -

    I'll bet you some hokie fries that Holtzman Vogel beats Tate 80/20 or 90/10 - if Tate isnt wearing an orange jumpsuit by June 12th.

     

  • At 5/08/2007 12:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    No woman with a minus sign in her last name is fit to be a Republican nominee. Pick a name, girly, and stand by pour man!

     

  • At 5/25/2007 9:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    a woman can stand by her man and still be herself-where have you been the last 50 years?

     

  • At 5/25/2007 9:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    How can anyone say the race is even-look at all the signs you see around the district-who's name do you see more frequently?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home