{"id":109,"date":"2006-12-06T22:37:12","date_gmt":"2006-12-07T02:37:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/archives\/109"},"modified":"2006-12-06T22:37:54","modified_gmt":"2006-12-07T02:37:54","slug":"haverns-campaign-receipts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/2006\/12\/haverns-campaign-receipts\/","title":{"rendered":"Havern’s Campaign Receipts"},"content":{"rendered":"

I wrote about this topic<\/a> in September about the pre-primary filing. Since then, there was an October pre-election filing. It is equally interesting as September’s. My source is the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance<\/a>. To see the data yourself, you can:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Check out the database<\/a>.<\/li>\n
  2. Click \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Candidates.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/li>\n
  3. Enter \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Havern\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for the last name.<\/li>\n
  4. Click the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153 \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Pre-election Report\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/li>\n
  5. In particular, I’m talking about Schedule A<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Havern’s receipts were $11,000. Again, a big chunk (more than $4000) was from PACs, lobbyists, unions, and lawyers.<\/p>\n

    What is more interesting in this particular filing is the industry of the donors. The legislature was working on the health care bill – and more than a dozen donors appeared from hospitals, insurance companies, and other healthcare industry representatives. I don’t believe that this is a coincidence. The industry is donating more in the same period that major healthcare changes are being implemented.<\/p>\n

    Another curiousity in this filing. Why are there two different donations from the National Association of Government Employees (the union known as NAGE) that add up to $700? Neither lists a committee number. The legal limit for such donations is $500. (The curiousity in the last filing, the $100 contribution from the “Alcohol Beverage Control Commission,” was not amended). I’m going to write a letter and ask for clarification on both.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    I wrote about this topic in September about the pre-primary filing. Since then, there was an October pre-election filing. It is equally interesting as September’s. My source is the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance. To see the data yourself, you can: Check out the database. Click \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Candidates.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Enter \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Havern\u00e2\u20ac\u009d for the last name. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,3,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-109","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arlington","category-massachusetts","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dandunn.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}