Where do I go to get my Reputation Back?

Today I recieved some news that is just, well vindication that the Truth shall set us free. After being publicly smeared as a campaign finance violator by the Delaware Republican Party simply for supporting Christine O'Donnell over Mike Castle. The FEC had previously reached a split decision on the matter but the investigative committee found no reason to believe that the O'Donnell campaign nor I had done anything wrong. Here is a link to the entire report and here is the excerpt that vindicates me.

Finally, the complainant alleges that the O'Donnell Committee's press secretary stated on his Facebook page that he speaks to TPAC "daily. The complainant also states that TPAC was planning a radiothon during which O'Donnell would make an appearance. OGC recommended finding reason to believe that violations of the Act occurred based on those facts. We disagreed.

We note again that "opening an investigation to determine whether we could discover a basis for those suspicions runs counter to the statutory constraints imposed on the Commission. That "reason to believe" requires more than mere speculation has been established in prior enforcement matters. For example, in MUR 4960 (Hillary Clinton), the Commission summarized the requirements as follows:
The Commission may find "reason to believe" only if a complaint sets forth sufficient specific facts, which, if proven true, would constitute a violation of the FECA. Complaints not based upon personal knowledge must identify a source of information that reasonably gives rise to a belief in the truth of the allegations presented...

Unwarranted legal conclusions firom asserted facts, see SOR in MUR 4869 (American Postal Workers Union), or mere speculation, see SOR of Chairman Wold and Commissioners Mason and Thomas in MUR 4850 (Fossella), will not be accepted as true. In addition,... a complaint may jbe dismissed if it consists of factual allegations that are refiited with sufficiently compelling evidence provided in the response to the complaint...

Similarly, in MUR S467 (Michael Moore), the Commission stated that "[purely speculative charges, especially when accompanied by a direct refutation, do not form an adequate basis to find a reason to believe that a violation of the FECA has occurred." Therefore, under the Act, before making a reason-to-believe determination, the Commission must assess both the law and the credibility of the facts alleged. To do so, the Commission must identify the sources of information and examine the facts and reliability of those sources to determine whether they 'reasonably [give] rise to a belief in the truth of the allegations presented." Only if this standard is met may the Commission investigate whether a violation occurred. These requirements are not met here.

Assuming that the radiothon was paid for by TPAC, mentioned the candidate, and was broadcast shortly before the primary election, the available information, including the Facebook posts at issue, provides insufficient basis for a reason-to-believe finding. First, the Facebook posting for the event does not indicate whether or not O'Donnell was set to appear. While a Facebook post by Evan Queitsch, apparently directed to a WDEL radio station employee, reads "@Jensen 1150 WDEL let me know if you want to know about the Tea Party Express as I speak w/them daily," OCiC states that the posts on their face do not satisfy the conduct prong. We agree. And even if TPAC and the O'DonnellConmiittee were in daily contact, such contacts would not be sufficient to meet the conduct threshold. More specific information is necessary.

Our unwillingness to find reason to believe a violation occurred based on the O'Donnell Committee's original response is bolstered by later confirmation that Mr. Queitsch was not a member of the O'Donnell campaign during the primary campaign. Therefore, the complainant's accusations in this matter, including one of which was based on tiie incorrect factual implication that Evan Queitsch was the O'Donnell Committee's press secretary, provide insufficient basis to find reason to believe.

My question is, where do I go to get my reputation back? When do I get to repair the damage that this false complaint has done to my career and potential political aspirations?   Mr. Tom Ross, do you even care that you've destroyed the career of an innocent person?  What about you Michael Toner?  Do you care that your false allegations have impacted my career? 

Also, to the media, you were quick to print my name in your articles alledging that there was wrong doing involved here.  Now that Christine, TEA Party Express and I have been cleared of wrong doing, will you print your retraction and apology on page A-1? 

Votegate

My good friend Charlie Copeland over at Resolute Determination has an excellent piece on DeLucagate and Tiganigate that calls to task Delaware Democrats whose corruption can no longer be hidden.  As usual, Charlie expertly ties together the corruption surrounding State Senator Tony DeLuca's late release of his adjusted time cards after weeks of refusal to do so and even going so far as to have Attorney General Beau Biden cite a Homeland Security statute to keep his time cards secret, with the illegal campaign donations from NKS Distributors owner Chris Tigani.  From Vice President Biden to Lt. Gov. Matt Denn, Gov. Markell and even Senator Tom Carper, Delaware Democrats have been getting these illegal donations for years.  The Delaware Democrats have hidden for years behind a veil of secrecy thanks to a complicit media and reports whose curiosity was not just inconsistent but often nonexistent.  Now, with reporters such as Chad Livengood and Cris Barrish on the case, who are inquisitive and unafraid of following the truth, their exploits are on display. 

Now, the Democrats are pushing their far left agenda by passing marijuana legalization laws and civil union legislation through the state General Assembly and having Jack Markell sign them.  Delaware is hemorrhaging jobs and falling further and further into debt.  The transportation department has been exposed as corrupt and Markell's failure as Governor is apparent.  While some local talk show hosts may disagree, Delaware has not created jobs, there has been no net economic growth, in fact, Delaware has lost jobs month in and month out all while Markell and his cronies in the General Assembly have forced their liberal agenda on us.  Now, after all of this failure, our General Assembly wants to make Delaware, the second smallest state in the U.S. beholden to cities who have more population than our entire state. 

It's called the National Popular Vote Act and it cedes Delaware's sovereignty to the national popular vote.  What does that mean?  It means that Presidential candidates will no longer come to Delaware and that our 3 electoral votes, will no longer be awarded based on the votes of the citizens of the State of Delaware.  They would instead be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote.  This gives our electoral votes to whomever win the votes of America's major cities.  The Electoral College was designed by our founders to ensure that small states (like Delaware) would have a say on par with larger states.  That is not to say that the votes would be equal but rather that the smaller states would have a say as much as any other state would.  Originally, the "Electors" as they are shown in the Constitution, cast votes for candidates who wanted to be President.  The top two vote getters would be President and Vice President respectively.  This is how John Adams ended up with Thomas Jefferson, a political rival as Vice President.  At this time, around 1800, political parties emerged after 12 years without any real "parties".  The founders saw inherent problems with political opposites as #1 and #2 in command, especially for instance, when it came to foreign policy (Thomas Jefferson supported the French Revolution while John Adams was very much against it).  That is why they wrote and proposed the 12th Amendment which retained the Electors (and the Electoral College) but grouped the President and Vice President as a package deal. 

Now, after 223 years of successful elections with just a handful of concerns over the Presidency going to the winner of the Electoral votes who lost the national popular vote, Delaware's Democrat controlled General Assembly is ready to tell you that YOUR vote doesn't matter.  They think that Delaware's electoral votes ought to go to the person who gets the most votes nationally, meaning, the person who wins the cities.  Are you willing to let your vote be decided by people who live in New York, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Miami or Houston?  The State House has passed the measure.  Your State Democrat State Representatives have decided that your vote doesn't matter.  Please, call your State Senator and tell them NOT to cede our votes to big cities.

Delaware GOP filed lawsuit against wrong Republican candidate for U.S. Senate

That's a big oops. It turns out that there was some funny business when it came to campaign finance in the Delaware Republican Party but it wasn't committed by Christine O'Donnell. Instead the violations were committed by none other than former Congressman Mike Castle. The Delaware GOP overtly claimed that O'Donnell used campaign funds for personal expenses in a suspicious pattern in 2009-2010. This argument is largely based on the idea that she had not filed a Statement of Candidacy (the form required by federal election law for a candidate to be official). The following is information that has recently come to light:

Yet O'Donnell's "pattern" was similar to Mike Castle's "pattern" of campaign spending, except that O'Donnell declared herself a candidate (technically, exploring a candidacy for office) in January 2009, whereas Mike Castle did not actually become a candidate until October 2009. (Actually, O'Donnell's pattern of campaign spending in early 2009 is more obviously proper than Castle's.)

The DEGOP's lies were based upon the falsehood that O'Donnell was not a candidate for office at the time the expenses were incurred. In fact, she undeniably was.

From January 2009 through June 2009, Mike Castle used campaign funds for:

$587.64 for food & beverage at CAFE GELATTO, paid on February 6, 2009. (Remember: Castle's Statement of Candidacy was filed October 19, 2009.)

$2,588.88 for food & beverage at the Capitol Hill Club restaurant in Washington, DC, paid between March and May 2009. Again, Castle filed his Statement of Candidacy in October 2009. The U.S. Senate campaign was up in Delaware, not in Washington, D.C. However, Castle was a Congressman in D.C., eating out in Washington, D.C. off of campaign contributions.

$245.77 at WHO'S COOKIN' for FOOD & BEVERAGE, paid on 3/27/2009

$594 at FLOWERS BY YUKIE between January and March 2009.

$219.80 at HAPPY HARRY'S on 1/14/2009

$13,499.35 in unspecified credit card charges, creating a "slush fund" for Mike Castle's expenses that are not identified on FEC reports.

$873.70 at the TIMBERLAKE restaurant down in Washington, D.C., not in Delaware where the campaign was, paid on 12/19/2008. Castle was of course a sitting Congressman at the time. However, his personal expenses for food down in Washington, D.C. should not be paid out of his campaign funds up in Delaware. Congress was in its Christmas recess on December 19, 2008. Food related to either Castle's Congressional activities or personal living in Washington, D.C. should not be paid out of campaign funds for the election up in Delaware.

$120.00 at GALLAGHER & GALLAGHER for food & beverage paid on 4/29/2009.

$1,298.67 to COMCAST cable from January 2009 through June 2009 -- again months before Mike Castle was actually a candidate.

$500 for gala tickets to the Chowder & Marching Club -- IN MARYLAND! This was not an event in Delaware.

$546.25 to AMTRAK for travel from March 2009 to May 2009 - before Castle was a candidate.

Mike Castle -- although an elected official for almost 40 years -- has somehow amassed a personal fortune worth over $3.5 million. Perhaps we've discovered part of Mike Castle's road to riches: Pocket his congressional salary, then live off of campaign donations for his personal living expenses? At least if those accusations are hurled without any foundation at O'Donnell, might we ask the same questions about Mike Castle? Or are questions about certain people off limits?

While Christine O'Donnell was clearly a candidate for U.S. Senate in January 2009, so that all of her campaign expenses are legitimate, it is Mike Castle who fails the very same test advanced by the Delaware Republican Party. The smears spread by the DEGOP were then handed to Ginger Gibson at the Delaware News Journal, who published a March 2010 hit piece smearing O'Donnell. These charges were later picked up by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in a criminal complaint based on David Keegan's affidavit.
On March 20, 2009, O'Donnell filed a "Statement of Candidacy" for the 2010 U.S. Senate race with the Federal Election Commission.

In December 2008, O'Donnell posted a message on her 2008 campaign website urging volunteers to keep their campaign signs for probable use in 2010. In January 2009, O'Donnell began informing supporters privately of her status as an exploratory candidate for the 2010 U.S. Senate race. Her campaign finance reports show trips to Washington, D.C., to meet with donors and potential supporters, as well as meetings in Delaware with potential donors and supporters.

The Statement of Candidacy is normally filed only after a person has been a candidate for a while, and exceeded a $5,000 threshold of donations or expenses. So O'Donnell was a candidate prior to March 20, 2009. Castle, however, exceeded the $5,000 donation / expenditure threshold very early in 2009, but Castle did not file his Statement of Candidacy until October 2009. Therefore, Castle did not have the intent to be a candidate until October, and from January through September 2009 was using campaign funds for personal purposes. At least, that is the very same argument used by insiders in attacking Christine O'Donnell.

The Delaware Republican Party started in December 2009 -- weeks after Karl Rove's attempts failed at co-opting the tea party movement for Mike Castle -- to circulate smears, likes, and slander against Christine O'Donnell. The "DEGOP" was obligated to remain neutral among primary candidates for the Republican nomination until the State GOP endorsing convention held March 13-14, 2010, in Rehoboth Beach. Instead, the DEGOP not only launched assaults to sabotage Christine O'Donnell to help left-wing Mike Castle (a fiscal liberal and social liberal), but did so with savage personal attacks which were lies and slander.

With this kind of dishonesty by Tom Ross and the Delaware Republican leadership, it is time to start over with a fresh team of leadership for Delaware's Republican future.

With these new revelations about the 2010 Republican candidates for Senate, I hope that intelligent moderate Republicans, who were sucked in by the lies of Tom Ross, Priscilla Rakestraw and Mike Castle will hold them accountable by their own standards and call for their removal and dismissal. Ross, Rakestraw and Castle have done damage to the party that will linger for many years. Their plan appears to have been to burn the party down if they couldn't maintain control. I sincerely hope that the next chair of the Delaware GOP, whomever they may be, moves forward and brings along people Like Glen Urquhart and Christine O'Donnell who energized and revitalized the Delaware GOP in 2010. They deserve not only our thanks but our apologies for the way they were treated.