Posted on 09/20/2002 10:14:08 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
OK, I found it:
August 20, 2001
WASHINGTON – The Federal Election Commission announced today the appointment of Lawrence H. Norton, an official with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as the FEC’s new General Counsel.
Since 1996, Norton has been Associate Director in the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement, where he supervises investigations of financial fraud and trading violations, and is director of the litigation team. He also develops and implements policy and special initiatives, advises the CFTC Commissioners and division heads on regulatory and legal issues, is a standing member of multi-agency task forces and is an adjunct instructor with the National Institute of Trial Advocacy.
He has been an Assistant Director at the Federal Trade Commission, where he supervised consumer protection investigations and litigation. Before joining the federal government, Norton was an Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Litigation Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office. He graduated Order of the Coif from the University of Maryland School of Law and was Assistant Editor of the Maryland Law Review.
Norton replaces former General Counsel Lawrence M. Noble, who resigned in January. At the FEC, Norton will be in charge of 118 government employees composing the divisions of enforcement, litigation, policy, and public financing-ethics-special projects.
FEC Chairman Danny L. McDonald commented, "The six commissioners of the FEC conducted a careful and thoughtful search over some eight months, interviewing many top-flight candidates for the General Counsel position before we reached unanimous consensus about Larry Norton. He has impressive credentials and a stellar reputation and I’m very pleased that he has accepted our offer to come aboard."
Vice Chairman David M. Mason noted, "Norton has a perfect blend of enforcement, litigation and policy experience to bring to the General Counsel’s position at the FEC, but it is his outstanding performance as a government manager that made the Commission enthusiastic in selecting him for this critical job."
Norton will report for duty at the FEC in mid-September, a date-certain still to be established.
"Democrats in 1996 fund-raising scandals face record fines by FEC
Friday, September 20, 2002
(09-20) 21:31 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
The Federal Election Commission has imposed a record $719,000 in fines against Democrats involved in the party's 1996 fund-raising scandals, according to a published report.
FEC documents described how Democratic fund-raisers demanded illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals in China and other countries in exchange for meetings with then-President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore.
Among those who were penalized by the FEC were: The Democratic National Committee, $115,000; the Clinton-Gore campaign, $2,000; and the Buddhist Progressive Society, $120,000, the Washington Post reported in Saturday's editions.
More than 20 people and corporations acting as conduits for the illegal contributions also were fined, the newspaper said, citing FEC documents.
They've all agreed to pay, according to the records.
The total amount of fines would have been much higher except some of the companies have shut down and others were dummy operations used as conduits for money from Canada, China, Venezuela and other countries, the newspaper said.
The FEC dropped the cases involving another $3 million in illegal campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee because the respondents either "are out of the country and beyond our reach, or (are) corporations that are defunct," according to FEC papers cited by the Post."
against all enemies foreign and domestic
Okay, okay, How about "Highlighted"?
No? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm............How about Dan Rather reading this story to his Producer BEFORE the show?
Are you kidding?
AG Ashcroft disbanded the campaign finance task force. He and this administration have shown absolutely no interest in justice.
And our spineless AG and even I'm sad to say our President should never have let these guys get away with this.....
You are quite correct. But we are "movin' on"...no need to let matters of national security get in the way of the new tone.
Ashcroft is a sanctimonious fraud and a dangerous man.
For example there is this line from the compost:
A Democratic finance vice chair, for example, said organizers would have to contribute $ 100,000 in return for Gore's appearance at a Buddhist temple in Los Angeles.
This is hugely illegal. Why no name? Why not call it what it is, bribery, graft...
Only two major papers have done an article on this, the NY Times and ComPost.
Compost reports as well wondeful gems of logic on the FEC's part such as these:
...fines would have been significantly higher except that some of the corporations have folded and others were dummy operations, with no assets, set up as conduits for money from China, Venezuela, Canada and other countries.
...the FEC said it decided to drop cases against contributors of more than $ 3 million in illegal DNC contributions because the respondents either are "out of the country and beyond our reach, or corporations that are defunct."
In other words set up fake comapnies for your Demeocrat Money Laundering schemes and you get a pass.
Thanks for your comment.
Which part bothers you more...'sactimonious fraud' or 'dangerous man'?
The demorats understand what is the key to power is winning, playing by the rules is secondary.
These fines are "the cost of doing business."
How come? The fines are exacted AFTER the prize has been won. That is too say, the demorats conduct the forbidden activity to raise cash, win the election, and establish their person in whatever position of power they were seeking - let's say, the Presidency.
Along comes the fine. So what? The election is not reversed, the person is still in whatever position implementing their leftist, socialist policies. Which is what they are after.
In addition - the fines levied in this instance are chump change. Even if it was $1 million - one has to remember over $100 million is routinely raised for Presidential campaigns, and if you get fined 1% - heck, you roll it into the fund raising activities (there's that "cost of doing business thing again).
None of this is beyond symbollic until the fines begin to match the penalty. Redefine the penalty - the fine should be the total amount raised by the party for a given race PLUS a percentage of all soft money raised in the cycle in question using the following formula:
House of Representatives = 1 unit
Senate = number of units equal to number of represenatives in a given state
Presidency = equal to the total number of units nationwide for House and Senate.
[Analogous formulas could be applied at the state level.] That would be a real whammy, and might actually get some attention. It would have a long-term dibilatory effect and cause doners to question the wisdom of short-term office garnership versus long-term "poverty" (fund raising would have to go to paying off fines, rather than actually being applied to campaigns).
Just my thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.