…Former city councilman Noach Dear picked up decidedly modest support from the Kushner fundraising machine when he ran for Congress in 1998 and 2000. Records show he received about $7,500 from Kushner and his associates.
But Dear, who served 18 years in the council representing Brooklyn's Borough Park, and who once boasted a close relationship to Bill Clinton due to his ability to raise money for the Clinton-Gore ticket among New York's Orthodox Jewish business community, came in for blistering language in a recent FEC audit. During his unsuccessful run for the Ninth District congressional seat representing Brooklyn and Queens (a seat won by Anthony Weiner), auditors found that Dear and campaign treasurer Abraham Roth—a certified public accountant—accepted "several sets of sequentially numbered money orders." The money, purportedly from 47 individual contributors, totalled about $40,000.
When interviewed, however, those whose names appeared on the money orders told FEC investigators they had never made donations to Dear's committee.
So where did the money orders come from? Auditors discovered that the culprits were two key aides to Dear's campaign committee. Nicholas Lagemann, Dear's campaign finance director, and Bella Vais, his chief of staff, "executed at least some of those money orders in the name of others," according to a civil complaint filed against Dear in federal court.
Nor were fraudulent money orders the only problem the audit found. In his 1998 campaign, Dear accepted a whopping $564,000 in contributions that exceeded federal limits, according to the FEC. Dear's committee agreed to return the excess contributions, and in its midyear 1999 filing claimed to have done just that, making refunds of more than $300,000. But that wasn't true either, auditors discovered. In fact, the complaint stated, the refunds were never made. As late as June 2003, when the FEC, unable to get Dear to agree to pay up, filed its complaint, he still had failed to refund more than $200,000 of the excess contributions.
Last month, Dear and Roth, his former campaign treasurer, quietly agreed to pay fines to resolve the matter. Roth pledged to pay $45,000, while Dear will ante up all the remaining funds in two committees, Dear for Congress and Friends of Noach Dear '93. It's not much. In its last filings, Dear for Congress listed $710 in cash on hand and debts of $148,000; Dear '93 no longer exists.
Since term limits forced him out of his council seat, Dear has been perpetually seeking elected office. He ran in 2002 for a newly created state senate post in Flatbush, but was defeated by political novice Kevin Parker. This year, he is again running for the seat, and his new state committee (which is off-limits to the FEC's enforcement agents) lists $290,582 in funds raised. Dear didn't respond to several messages left at his home and at his current campaign office.
The FEC summary of the case:
On June 7, 2004, the parties solely, for the purpose of settling this case, stipulated that the court could enter a consent judgment, with the defendants neither admitting nor denying the findings included in the judgment. In the consent judgment, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York provided declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief in favor of the Commission. The court decreed that one or more of the defendants violated the Federal Election Campaign Act's:
Contribution limits (2 U.S.C. § 441a(a)(1)(A));
Reporting requirements (2 U.S.C. §§ 434(a)(6)(A), 434(b)(2), 434(b)(4), 434(b)(4)(F) and 434(b)(8));
Prohibition on contributions made in the name of another (2 U.S.C. § 441f); and
Prohibition on corporate contributions (2 U.S.C. § 441b(a)).
The court ordered Dear for Congress, Dear 2000 and Friends of Noah Dear to pay to the Commission all funds remaining in their accounts as of the date that the parties entered into the stipulated agreement, and the court ordered Abraham Roth, as treasurer, to pay a $45,000 civil penalty to the FEC. In addition, the court enjoined the defendants from committing further such violations of the Act.Background
This complaint arose from FEC administrative Matters Under Review (MURs) 4935 and 5057. The Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) limits the aggregate amount that a person may contribute to a federal candidate, and it prohibits any person from making a contribution in the name of another person and any person from knowingly accepting such a contribution. 2 U.S.C. §§441a(f) and 441f. The Act also bars corporations and unions from making contributions from treasury funds to influence a federal election and any person from knowingly receiving such a contribution. 2 U.S.C. §441b(a). Committees and their treasurers are also required to file timely and accurate campaign finance disclosure reports. 2 U.S.C. §§434(b)(4)(F), 434(b)(8) and 434(a)(6)(A). On May 1, 2003, the Commission found probable cause to believe that the defendants had violated these provisions of the Act, and it filed this suit after failing to reach a conciliation agreement with the defendants. 2 U.S.C. §§437g(a)(4)(A) and (a)(6)(A).Court Complaint
On June 5, 2003, the Commission filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Dear for Congress, Inc., Dear 2000, Inc., Friends of Noach Dear '93 and these committees' treasurer Abraham Roth. The complaint alleged, among other things, that:Dear for Congress, Dear 2000 and Mr. Roth accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in prohibited contributions;
Dear for Congress, through Mr. Roth, filed FEC reports showing that more than $300,000 in excessive contributions had been refunded to contributors when, in fact, none of the refunds had been made when the report was filed, and over $200,000 remains to be refunded; and
Dear for Congress and Mr. Roth accepted numerous money orders, purportedly from individual contributors, that were not made by the persons identified on the money orders.
The Commission asked the court for a civil penalty, declaratory and injunctive relief and for the maximum civil penalty for each violation.Mr. Dear was an unsuccessful House candidate in the 1998 New York primary, and Dear for Congress was his campaign committee. During the campaign, Dear for Congress and Mr. Roth accepted several sets of sequentially numbered money orders, purportedly from some 47 individuals, totaling approximately $40,000. However, the Commission alleged that Dear for Congress campaign staff executed at least some of these money orders. Several money orders were signed in the same handwriting, and many of the individuals whose names appear on the money orders deny making contributions to the committee or contributions via money order. Moreover, the Commission alleged that in accepting these contributions, Mr. Roth failed to comply with the statutory requirement to examine the legality of each of these facially irregular contributions. 2 U.S.C. §432(b)(1).
The Commission also alleged that during the 1998 election cycle, Dear for Congress and Mr. Roth accepted approximately $564,000 in excessive contributions and did not refund or redesignate the contributions within the 60-day period set by Commission regulations. 11 CFR 103.3(b)(3). Dear for Congress and Mr. Roth also accepted impermissible campaign contributions from several corporations, totaling about $12,000. Moreover, the committee and Mr. Roth had still not refunded approximately $200,000 in excessive contributions, and the complaint described a number of reporting violations by Dear for Congress and Mr. Roth, including falsely reporting refunds of impermissible contributions.
The complaint further alleged that Mr. Dear's nonfederal campaign committee made an excessive contribution to one of his federal campaign committees. In addition to running for the House in 1998, Mr. Dear also campaigned for a New York City council seat. Friends of Dear was his campaign committee for that election, and Mr. Roth served as treasurer. In December 1999, Mr. Dear established Dear 2000 to serve as his principal campaign committee for his campaign to win a House seat in the 2000 primary. Mr. Roth again served as treasurer. During 1999 Friends of Dear purchased an opinion poll for $40,000 and contributed the results to Dear 2000. The Commission alleged that once Mr. Dear became a candidate for federal office, the donation of the opinion poll resulted in an excessive in-kind contribution from Friends of Dear, which could only contribute $1,000 per election to Dear 2000. The Commission alleged that Mr. Roth knowingly accepted this excessive contribution on behalf of Dear 2000 and also failed to report the contribution on the committee's first financial disclosure report, due January 1, 2000.
Relief
The Commission asked the court to:Declare that the defendants violated these provisions of the Act;
Assess appropriate civil penalties;
Order Dear for Congress and Mr. Roth to disgorge to the U.S. treasury all unrefunded excessive contributions, prohibited corporate contributions and contributions in the name of another; and
Permanently enjoin the defendants from further similar violations of the Act.Source: FEC Record -- August 2003 [PDF]; August 2004 [PDF].
Here are the two PDF files cited immediately above: