You may remember my story from last week about the unreported $610 PAC donation to last year’s Nicolay campaign:
The Coast Star followed up on the story with a very interesting article today. It is republished below in its entirety with the permission of the Coast Star.
OK. A few questions:
The check was recorded in the report as #1056 but the one they found “buried in paperwork” was actually #1053. In the report, though, it looks like it was changed to 1056 from another number, maybe 1054.
Seems very very odd. They changed it from 1054 to 1056 but the one they unburied and produced for the Coast Star was 1053? What’s going on over there? And why do Ms. Nicolay and Ms. Onitiri cite two different reasons for the check being returned? If the check was simply made out incorrectly wouldn’t the Caucus have just sent another correctly made-out check? (Maybe #1054?)
BTW, doesn’t $610 seem like a strange amount to donate? Why not $600? What’s the extra $10 for?
One other thing. NJ ELEC’s candidate handbook clearly states that ALL donations must be deposited within ten days and reported in the candidate’s filings.
If the donation can not be accepted it is supposed to then be refunded to the contributor and that transaction reported too.
*
The Nicolay campaign has to know this because when they received a $500 donation from Klein’s, who has a liquor license, they handled that situation correctly.
*
It does not sound to me like we’re getting straight answers about this.
2 Comments
Opinion, their explanation seems shady.
Breaking the law is always shady thank you Dave and the Coast Star for lighting up this pathetic attempt to obtain illegal campaign funds. Actually we do not even know that if the check was cashed. For all we know it was. Show the proof Jenifer Nicolay and Ms. Onitiri. BTW that Klein donation that was refunded is that the same family who owns Kleins restaurant and the new additional outdoor establishment. If it is this donation was given during Kleins negotiations for expansion and additional construction and exemplifies exactly why we need the pay to play to remain as is.
Post a Comment