|
State Board of Elections votes 7-0 to dismiss case against Mautino
Tuesday, Nov 16, 2021 - Posted by Rich Miller * What a long strange trip this has been…
…Adding… Some background from earlier this year…
…Adding… [The bill in this deleted update had been signed previously. Oops. Sorry about that.]
|
- Annonin' - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:14 am:
Let’s rush to get a
- Annonin' - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:15 am:
opps …get a quote from defeated Rep. Whirls on how his big legislative agenda F* Mautino bombed out…much as he did
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:17 am:
Good day for Mautino.
I do Grant you, it’s a bad day for Wehrli…
- Pizza Man - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:19 am:
Having no other choice but to dismiss the case against the state’s ‘watchdog chief’ as IBoE is a weak organization with no teeth.
Mautino is no dummy.. he saw loopholes in the law and got away with it due to its weak campaign-related current laws.
In addition to being legally permitted to shred the documents/receipts after 2 years.
You can do better Mautino. You’re a nice guy..but.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:23 am:
@FakeGrantWehrli - but, but, but… I ran a whole political campaign against Mautino abd you dismiss it, like voters dismissed me? #PhonyNeedsToPhony
@FakeGrantWehrli - I alienated as many people as I could and this is the thanks I get, you follow your rules and dismiss, unanimously? Twitter matters. #LosingHeartsMindsAndVotes
- Back to the Future - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:26 am:
Nice job of reporting by Hannah Meisel. The story is definitely worn a read.
The selection of how this fellow was chosen as State Auditor and the litigation that followed him around is a sad comment on how our state often operates.
- flea - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:27 am:
There was a certain leaning by many to the concept he was guilty until proven innocent on this matter.
What took so long?
- Streator Curmudgeon - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:33 am:
Not “knowingly” to the tune of $250K?
C’mon.
- Donnie Elgin - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:42 am:
If “not Knowilingly” is the standard for campaign finances - then I would look for lots of “plausible deniability” approaches in campaign spending. So basically more of the same.
- Pizza Man - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 10:47 am:
This was one ‘Happy’ gas station in Spring Valley…I guess customer service really matters (after 20 plus years of service).
Sorry Mobil, Shell, Citgo, Caseys, etc.
- Lincoln Lad - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 11:26 am:
I guess being a top MJM lieutenant still helps you in these post MJM days. Come on, be better than this…
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 11:33 am:
- Lincoln Lad -
It was 7-0…
- Jake From Elwood - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 11:54 am:
Hmm… a retroactively-applied piece of legislation had to be signed into law to open the door for the ISBE to clear Mr. Mautino.
Only in Illinois…
- Sir Reel - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 12:27 pm:
And this is how you “run out the clock,” at least in terms of everybody forgot about it.
- Pot calling kettle - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 1:01 pm:
Well…lots of uninformed negativity today…
The legislation is not retroactive and did not apply to this case.
The high dollar amounts tossed around were achieved by adding up ten years of expenses. Back when this started, I did a little math - $200,000 over ten years is $20,000/year - if Mautino had charged mileage instead, that would be about 40,000 miles/yr - not unreasonable for a rural state rep driving around a large district.
The 7-0 vote is a pretty good indicator that the Board of Elections understands the expenses were legitimate; the question comes down to how those expenses were reported. And, Mautino reported those expenses in the same manner for 20 years without complaints from numerous opponents and plenty of opposition research. This ruling is a recognition that there was no intent to deceive or to violate the rules.
- Streator Curmudgeon - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 2:46 pm:
“This is so Illinois,” Batinick said. “We have had an auditor general that has been found in violation of campaign finance laws. So, we’re literally changing the law so he retroactively was no longer in violation of those laws.”
So Rep. Batinick was completely wrong?
- NonAFSCMEStateEmployeefromChatham - Tuesday, Nov 16, 21 @ 2:55 pm:
Happy’s service station to me sounds like the Spring Valley version of Qik n EZ, but this time with a repair shop as all gas stations used to be. As opposed to being basically liquor and tobacco stores with a few gas pumps.
- Sent - Wednesday, Nov 17, 21 @ 7:25 am:
You know you are in Illinois when the Auditor General claims to not know the law as his defense to improper spending of $250k in campaign funds and his supporters claim victory.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Nov 17, 21 @ 7:28 am:
===his supporters===
A bipartisan board unanimously voted…
- Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, Nov 17, 21 @ 8:15 am:
== to improper spending of $250k in campaign funds ==
Improper reporting is not improper spending; the Board of Elections understands and recognizes that. It has always been clear what the money was spent on, and those expenses were not unreasonable (see above).