Sunday, December 10, 2006

Abduallah Failed To Comply With Campaign Finance Law

City-County Councilor Patrice Abduallah (D) shamelessly violated campaign finance laws which require municipal candidates to file reports disclosing the source of their campaign contributions and how they spent those funds when he first sought election to the Indianapolis city-county council in 2003. According to the reports he filed with the Marion Co. Election Board, he received $10,300 in contributions and expended $9,243.50 during the 2003 election cycle. Beyond that, it is difficult to make heads or tails out of reports which were sloppily and improperly prepared. But what can be discerned from them is very troubling.

Abduallah claimed as his single, largest contribution a $3,450 receipt from the Greater Indianapolis Progress Committee, which is actually a municipally-run nonprofit organization barred from making political contributions. It appears the report should have identified the source as the Greater Islamic Progress Committee, which his amended report later identified as making a $300 contribution, along with a number of other individuals with Muslim surnames. Abduallah appeared to be deliberately misrepresenting the true source of his campaign receipts.

His reports also showed he received over $6,000 in loans from two individuals, including Nellye Matthews and Don Bardon, in addition to several individual contributions from Colts' owner Jim Irsay, Nellye Matthews and Ron Gibson. For his expenditures, he identified numerous small purchases from restaurants, drug stores and grocery stores. These expenditures created the impression Abduallah was using campaign funds for personal expenditures. One expenditure was represented as a food purchase for campaign workers from a CVS store.

Brad Klopfenstein, who ran against Aduallah in 2003 as a Libertarian candidate, filed a complaint against Abduallah with the Marion Co. Election Board after he discovered numerous discrepancies in his reporting. "The numbers never added up even after he filed an amended report," Klopfenstein told AI. The minutes of a March 23, 2004 meeting of the Board indicate that the Board took up Klopfenstein's complaint after twice tabling it. Klopfenstein complained that Abuallah made no attempt to amend his reports until after the election was over. The Board treated the complaint as a "defective report." An attorney for Abduallah insisted that he had worked hard on trying to come into compliance with the law by filing amended reports. The Board unanimously agreed to slap Abduallah on the hand by issuing him a mere $100 fine.

Klopfenstein found the Board's treatment of Abduallah's violation of the campaign finance laws disillusioning. He said then-election administrator Robert Vane tried to dissuade him from pursuing the complaint. Only then-Board chairman Candace Marendt showed any interest in acting upon his complaint. It is rather pointless to have the law if the Election Board is willing to overlook such brazen violations in the campaign finance reporting requirements. Klopfenstein was particularly disappointed in the media's lack of concern that a city-county councilor had misrepresented his campaign finance reporting. If you examine Abduallah's reports, you can't help but conclude that a 10-year-old could have done a better job preparing the reports. The fact is they remain incorrect to this very day, even after the Board fined Abduallah.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hmmmmmmm .... HMMMMMMMMM ... so maybe THIS is what the 'Rats were holding over Mr. Abdullah.

Nice one Gary!

Wilson46201 said...

dissolutioning -- Huh?

Dissolution is the term for the legal process by which an adoption is reversed. While this applies to the vast majority of adoptions which are terminated, they are more commonly referred to as disruptions, even though that term technically applies only to those that are not legally complete at the time of termination.

In relation to a company, dissolution refers to the process by which the legal existence of the company is brought to an end.

Anonymous said...

And you have nothing better to comment on than his spelling and grammar?

I think he meant "disillusioning"

Wilson46201 said...

AI is rarely sloppy about writing - that's why the error is confusing.

Anonymous said...

Oh Lord now Wilson is giving grammar lessons.

Yet one more sign the apocolypse is upon us.

Anonymous said...

Wilson is the mold for all that is wrong with our community. Avoid the actual issues by correcting improper word use and/or grammar. Do us all a favor Wilson and throw your keyboard out into traffic!!!!!!!! Ya moron

Wilson46201 said...

Anonymous said...

Oh Lord now Wilson is giving grammar lessons.

Yet one more sign the apocolypse is upon us.
9:30 PM EST


It's spelled "apocalypse" in English - but thanks for playing!

Erin said...

AI- Any insight into the Vane role in dissuading investigation? That struck me as strange, he's the R on the board (or one of the R's).

Anonymous said...

Good for you Wilson46201. I've watched you throughout the last campaign cycle. You are doing a great job.

Talk about 'avoiding' issues, 9:39, this blog is full of people who have done nothing BUT avoid the issues.

As a hate-fest and cesspool for anyone who is anti-Democrat to wallow in, this blog really needs some help.

So, keep up the good work Wilson.

Anonymous said...

LMAO Wilson you took the bait on the spelling

What a joke

And, 10:49, Mr. Vane was never a member of the Voter Registration Board or the County Election Board. He was the Election board's hired gun. Pleasant, but strictly an order-follower.

The clerk's office has been the excllusive domain of Republican election law philandering and manipulation, for over 30 years.

Ding, dong, that witch is dead. Finally.

Advance Indiana said...

Brad did share with me that the Rs viewed his district as being overwhelmingly Democratic and if it had been a competitive district, they would have taken the issue more seriously.

Anonymous said...

A friend who ran for office filed his reports on time, and kept copies (thankfully). The Election board sent him threatening post-election campaign finance report letters. They lost the report twice.

It became comical.

Point is: I wouldn't automatically assume the Councillor did not file the reports as required. But if he did, he should have copies.

You can buy food for campaign workers, but that is a sticky wicket. Sounds like he funded his household for awhile off this campaign. Damn.

Advance Indiana said...

He filed the reports, anon 9:25. The problem was the content of the reports, or lack thereof.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like he funded his household for awhile off this campaign. Damn.

Damn is right. Just ask Guy Hunt[1]




[1]Southern state governor that was impeached because he used campaign funds to remodel his house. Big oops.

Anonymous said...

Guy Hunt? Ok, I'm officially lost.

Anonymous said...

11:25 - Wikipedia is your friend