Maybe all the rumormongers will read this and come to the conclusion that until they know the facts, maybe they should keep their mouths shut.
House rules on flying for candidates for Congress are different than for the US Senate.
Mark Souder and Brian Sikma from Hoosier Access are talking House rules. Stutzman flew during a Senate campaign under Senate campaign rules. Sikma should have checked his facts before spouting off in hopes of deflecting Sutzman support to his boss, Wes Culver. Sikma stated here:
The most important of those updated rules states that a candidate/campaign is now required to reimburse – at competitive commercial rates, or close to competitive commercial rates – all air travel service providers.
He then referenced a document he found on Barnes and Thornburg’s web site, but it was the wrong reference as it did not relate to Senate campaigns.
The Stutzman campaign today will be disclosing the invoices of the flights that are in-kind contributions by both pilots for a total of 5 flights between the two in the 2nd quarter report. Both are under the contribution limitations for donations of $4800 per couple, $2400 per individual. The Code of Federal Regulations, section 11CFR113.5 explains this (link – text file).
(d) In-kind contribution. Except as provided in 11 CFR 100.79, the unreimbursed value of transportation provided to any campaign traveler is an in-kind contribution from the service provider to the candidate or political committee on whose behalf, or with whom, the campaign traveler traveled. Such contributions are subject to the reporting requirements, limitations and prohibitions of the Act.
It is further explained in lay terms in the National Business Aviation Association’s, (NBBA) Carriage of Elected officials Handbook. Below are the relevant sections, click to enlarge the image to a readable size.
If you find this article informative? Consider donating any amount you choose.
Related posts:
- Why I sat on the Souder story I could have broke the story some...
Entries (RSS)
Dan,
Good job at trying to be truthful in light of everyone else trying to steer this in the directions that they want.
I saw a link on Facebook to this story at Hoosier Access, but the link doesn't work. Since you pointed out that the other guy was not telling the truth did you embarrass them? Is that why they took it down? Why do they even bother having multiple authors if when you point out something like that they (I assume) censor your work? Considering you have the truth, I find this a bit incredulous.
The question is; what flights for campaign events from Jackson or his anonymous ‘church friend’ were taken during the FIRST QUARTER? By law, first quarter campaign expenditures and campaign contributions were to be reported in the April campaign finance report. Stutzman attended the Monroe County Lincoln Day event in Bloomington on Feb. 20th. He also attended the Vanderbergh County and Warrick County Lincoln Day events in Feb. and March. SUPPOSEDLY Jackson flew him to the Bloomington event in Feb. (not April as he previously has stated). Was he flown to other campaign events?
When asked about the campaign finance issue, he deflects the question and says the SECOND QUARTER report is due in July. He hasn’t answered, as of yet, questions about the first quarter. If NO ONE flew him to ANY campaign event during the first quarter, then we can assume his April report is correct. (However, I think Souder was referring to a Lincoln Day event in the first quarter). But, so far Stutzman has been evasive when asked about this. It raises the questions/speculation – why?
This type of truth-bending is what really scalds me. We’ve lost sight of debating policy and working to serve the taxpayers. It’s all about “winning” and pay for play. And in the process truth and credibility take a beating.
Lory, please re-read the article! Senate rules are different!
Dan,
Where do I find the invoices for the flights? I thought those were going to be disclosed of Friday. I don't see anything reported anywhere.
So does this mean that Hoosier Access can no longer be trusted? An honest mistake? A calculated effort to muddy the waters for their own interests? I'm confused.