Beauchamp’s Finance Report Disasters
By Greg L | 18 June 2007 | Prince William County | 15 Comments
Here’s another one of those candidates that appears to have a problem with attention to detail.
Lucy Beuchamp, now running as an independent in the race for Clerk of the Court, has campaign finance reports that are a total disaster. Some payments are listed as being made by two people. Mutually incompatible boxes are checked off on some of the finance reports. The name of the campaign committee changes over time, without amended statements of organization being filed or any other explanation for these discrepancies. Sometimes arrows are drawn on the reports showing that an entry in one place belongs somewhere else. Transfers from her school board campaign account to her clerk’s race account are commingled with personal contributions, which is a definite no-no as far as campaign finance laws are concerned. It goes on and on.
Best of all, when Beauchamp pays the filing fee for the Republican convention, she fails to list the expenditure, but shows a loan for that precise amount to her campaign finance committee. After she stops payment on the check, the loan is magically “repaid”, but no bank charges are reported as expenditures. It’s bad enough that she stops payment on a candidate filing fee, but to not report that activity really looks like a serious election law violation, and may subject her campaign to some substantial fines.
These reports are a complete mess, and there’s no way to reliably determine exactly how her campaign is being financed. What a great candidate for Clerk of the Court, eh?
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
15 Comments
Views: 1067
Loading ...
“What a great candidate for Clerk of the Court, eh?”
McQuigg isn’t much better. Her lack of attention to detail contributed to the mess that is the 51st. Beauchamp and McQuigg….hmmm…who to chose?
Absolutely, Batson…but then again, thinking back on the 51st campaign and “I’m neutral but voting for Faisal Gill,” the decision becomes much, much easier.
Hey, give Lucy some credit. She saw the three card monte game that a Kopko-run convention would be. So she did the smart thing and ran as an Indie. Julie, sweet and naive, saw Kopko actually TAKE MONEY and still went through with the convo. Now Lucy’s on the ballot in November, with alot of Republican support, and Julie isn’t.
As Mr. T might say, Lucy ain’t no fool.
Does Beauchamp have a good shot at winning as more people become aware of the HOD-51 credentials fiasco? McQuigg could not control access to ballots and ballot boxes, resulting in overvotes in two precincts.
She is silent on Kopko’s perversion of the rules and his current obfuscatory delaying tactics in sending Julie’s appeal to the 11th District.
She is silent on Kopko’s collecting $2000 from Gill. None of these actions reflect well on McQuigg.
Furthermore, she is only running to get a bigger pension. Tough. What kind of a pension do most of us have? Why elect someone who is unfit for the office and supported Terror Lobbyist #1 Faisal Gill?
Why would a Republican voter listen to the rantings of a racist Democrat?
Playing the race card again, are we, Jimmy?
That’s the “racist” card, Jackie. If the shoe fits, etc….
Let’s see, a choice between Mitchell McQuigg, someone generally held in minimum high regard, looking to boost her State pension, with no knowledge of the Clerk’s Office, who was induced into running by right wing wackos lusting after her seat for an ideological true believe — read Fasil Gill — or Lucy, who cites as her primary qualification for the job, since she knows nothing about the Clerk’s Office, the fact that she likes watching Perry Mason. Wait, there is a third choice, somebody who actually knows the job and is qualified, Bill Ryland, the Democratic candidate. I know it goes against the anti-reality predisposition of many readers of this site, but it might actually be nice to have somebody qualified to do this job, who is not strictly speaking politically oriented. That, in fact, is what people like about Hill. How about paring Republican Hill with Democrat Ryland to get two qualified people in what are essentially administrative positions.
“”"That’s the “racist” card, Jackie.”"”
Jim, do people actually hire you for your writing skills? Google shows 897,000 hits for “race card” and a mere 23,000 for “racist card,” whatever that is.
“Race card” is a common expression:
“”"Playing the race card is an allegation often raised against a person who the accuser feels has unnecessarily brought the issue of race or racism into a debate so as to obfuscate the truth. An allegation of playing the race card is almost always a controversial one.”"”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_card
You have to understand, Jonathan…Jimmy is convinced that he knows far more than Google, or anything you might find on it. In his mind (heh), only the simple-minded rely upon it for information.
“Does Beauchamp have a good shot at winning as more people become aware of the HOD-51 credentials fiasco?”
Guaranteed it hasn’t HURT her chances, Jonathan. She could well wind up with some support that might have gone to Michele previously. There’s no question that the events at that convention will hurt a great many Republicans this November, and beyond…unless the appeals process leads to some real reform in the PWCRC and in the RPV Party Plan.
Only the simple-minded believe everything they read on the Internet.
…and James, even fewer believe what you write.
AWCheney said:
“There’s no question that the events at that convention will hurt a great many Republicans this November, and beyond…unless the appeals process leads to some real reform in the PWCRC and in the RPV Party Plan.”
You are absolutely right!!
Although a life-long Republican, I can never support an elected official who considers their own political career so important as to support ANY candidate with the background of Faisal Gill. …and James, before you even start, it has nothing to do with race, religion, ethnicity nor skin color.
As for Stewart and Mcquigg, they both knew of the Gill history…and despite his protestation of innocence, a person worthy of respect and trust would have NEVER allowed such questionable relationships to develop in the first place. Likewise, knowing about that history, knowing about the uniform violation, and knowing about his driving record, an elected official worthy of my trust and confidence would have never supported a candidate such as Faisal Gill.
Corey Stewart and Michelle McQuigg were warned that there would be a cost involved with their choice, regardless, they chose to support him for the HOD position. I will do my best to make them “pay” — no, not with money, but at the ballot box. I want them unseated and to become private citizens in shame. I trust that there are a number who agree with me.
I’m with FREEDOM.
Let me take it one step further. The Pragmatist R’s need to vote out the Ideologues. They’re dangerous.
The “pledge” is only applicable when both parties have integrity.
I will support CADDIGAN, NOHE, COVINGTON, MILLER, ROYSE, BEAUCHAMP,
LUCAS (the real winner), Gray, Arnaiz, Obrien AND PANDEK this election, screw the pledge, it’s meaningless!
Mike May may not be an ideologue, but he has no backbone. He does whatever Stewart tells him. Getting involved with the 51st was dumb, and now you’re going to pay.
IDEOLOGUES BOUGHT OFF BY GILL (His time is up in 2008)
KOPKO
STEWART
BOLLING
LINGAMFELTER