Elections commission investigates Evan Jenne for not returning excessive contributions fast enough

The Florida Elections Commission has found probably cause to fine state Rep. Evan Jenne, a Fort Lauderdale Democrat, for waiting more than three months to return five $500 contributions after his treasurer learned that his campaign had already accepted $500 contributions from the companies.

The companies who double-donated to the second term rep: Palma Nova; M. Austin Forman; American Marketing Westport, Ltd.; and National Resource Recovery, and Hartman Tyner.

The FEC decision came at its November 12 and 13 meeting. Also at that meeting, it fined two Tampa Bay legislators, Sen. Charlie Justice, D-St. Petersburg, and Rep. Darryl Rouson, D-St. Petersburg for campaign violations as well. Justice was fined $1,000 for accepting two $500 checks from Humana before the 2006 primary. Rouson was fined $750 for publishing an ad for a fundraiser that didn't include a disclaimer. State law requires that advertisements say that the purchase of tickets or contributions made at the fundraiser were contributions to the campaign. The complaint also alleges that his political advertisements didn't include a disclaimer saying that the ads were paid for by his campaign. The commission noted that it considers the allegation a minor violation.

Comments

[Kevin C.]

Apparently criminality is a hereditary trait.

[Annie Oakley]

Evan didn't use the money. It is his Campaign Treasurer's fault for not catching it sooner, not his. Politician's have treasurers so that they don't have to worry about these things!

[I said it!]

Evan Jenne was his own campaign treasurer and Mary Ellen Kias knows it!! What bias reporting! OMG it shows on the Florida Division of Elections website and in the FEC report that Evan Jenne was his own campaign treasurere. Evan is responsible for what happened. He knew what he was doing and only decided to return it after the complaints were filed. Mary you are trying to shift the blame by not telling the whole truth! Why mention other people who were fined by the FEC? You are just trying to shift blame off your do-boy Evan Jenne.
He should have never been re-elected. This is just the beginning of the truth that is going to come out about young Jenne boy. Wait until everyone finds about his drug habits-oh, wait everyone already knows the media just refuses to report it! It is called media bias!!! That is why the FCC is watching you.
Wait until everyone learns about his habit of throwing his girlfriends up against the wall. Oh, wait again everyone knows it. The MEDIA just refuses to report it. It is called MEDIA BIAS.
The Miami Hearld needs to get out of bed with this guy.
Have fun deleting this post because you know it's true!

[I said it!]

Why don't you post the whole information?
Are you still afraid of his daddy?
Post the whole truth and let the whole world know.

[I said it!]

Another thing-Evan was not investigated for failing to return the contributions fast enough (as you know Ms. Kias).

He was investigated and found guilty on 5 counts of taking illegal contributions.

PERIOD END OF STORY!!!

[I said it!]

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/candidate/CanDetail.asp?account=45100

see for yourselves

[I said it!]

STATE OF FLORIDA
FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION

FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION,
PETITIONER,
V. AGENCY CASE NO.: FEC 08-195
EVAN B. JENNE,
RESPONDENT.
__________________________________________/
ORDER OF PROBABLE CAUSE
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before the Florida Elections Commission at its meeting held on November 12 & 13, 2008.
The Commission has reviewed the complaint, Report of Investigation, Staff Recommendation, and written statements submitted by the Respondent and considered all oral statements made at the probable cause hearing. Based on the facts set forth in the Staff Recommendation, which is incorporated herein and attached to this order, the Commission finds that there is probable cause that Respondent committed five counts of violating Chapter 106, Florida Statutes:
Count 1:
On or about November 7, 2007, Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by accepting a contribution in excess of the legal limit, when he accepted a contribution in the amount of $500 from Palma Nova, after previously accepting a contribution from Palma Nova on March 1, 2007.
Count 2:
On or about November 7, 2007, Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by accepting a contribution in excess of the legal limit, when he accepted a contribution in the amount of $500 from M. Austin Forman, after previously accepting a contribution from M. Austin Forman on March 1, 2007.
Count 3:
On or about November 7, 2007, Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by accepting a contribution in excess of the legal limit, when he accepted a contribution in the amount of $500 from American Marketing Westport, Ltd., after previously accepting a contribution from American marketing Westport, Ltd. on March 1, 2007.
Count 4:
On or about November 7, 2007, Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by accepting a contribution in excess of the legal limit, when he accepted a contribution in the amount of $500 from National Resource Recovery, Ltd., after previously accepting a contribution from National Resource Recovery, Ltd. on March 1, 2007.
Count 5:
On or about September 24, 2007, Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by accepting a contribution in excess of the legal limit, when he accepted a contribution in the amount of $500 from Hartman & Tyner, Inc., after previously accepting a contribution from Hartman & Tyner, Inc. on June 18, 2007.
DONE AND ORDERED by the Florida Elections Commission and filed with the Clerk of the Commission on December 1, 2008, in Tallahassee, Florida.
_____________________________________
Jorge L. Cruz-Bustillo, Chair
Florida Elections Commission

[I said it!]

FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
CASE NUMBER: FEC 08-195
RESPONDENT: Evan B. Jenne
COMPLAINANT: Robert E. Kellner
On July 16, 2008, the Florida Elections Commission received a sworn complaint alleging that the Respondent violated Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. The Commission staff investigated the allegations and based on the facts and conclusions of law contained in the Complaint, the Report of Investigation, and this statement, the staff recommends that there is probable cause to charge Respondent with violating:
Five counts of violating Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, prohibiting a person or organization from accepting a contribution in excess of the legal limits.
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
1. Respondent was re-elected to the Florida House of Representatives, District 100, in the August 26, 2008, primary with 50.41% of the votes. On February 6, 2007, Respondent filed his Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depository for Candidates form, became a candidate, and appointed himself treasurer of his campaign.
2. Complainant is employed by H & G Trading Company, which is a food import company. Complainant opposed Respondent in the primary election and won 29.29% of the votes.
3. Complainant alleged in his complaint that Respondent accepted excessive contributions from American Marketing Westport, Ltd.; M. Austin Forman; Hartman & Tyner, Inc.; National Resource Recovery, Ltd.; and Palma Nova. Complainant attached to his complaint a printout of Respondent’s contributions obtained from the Division of Elections website.
I. Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes. (Counts 1 -- 5)
4. Investigator Cedric Oliver examined whether the Respondent violated this section of the election laws by accepting contributions in excessive of the $500 legal limit before the August 26, 2008, primary election.
5. Investigator Oliver examined the printout of Respondent’s contributions obtained from the Division of Elections website and Respondent’s campaign reports and determined that Respondent accepted the five excessive contributions, which are listed in Table 1.
TABLE 1: EXCESSIVE CONTRIBUTIONS ACCEPTED BY RESPONDENT
Date Reported Contributor Amount Total Date $500 Returned
3/1/07 Palma Nova $500 $1,000 2/14/08
11/7/07 $500
3/1/07 M. Austin Forman $500 $1,000 2/14/08
11/7/07 $500
3/1/07 American Marketing Westport, Ltd. $500 $1,000 2/14/08
11/7/07 $500
3/1/07 National Resource Recovery, Ltd. $500 $1,000 2/14/08
11/7/07 $500
6/18/07 Hartman & Tyner, Inc $500 $1,000 5/13/08
9/24/07 $500
6. On his 2007 Q1 campaign treasurer’s report (CTR), Respondent reported receiving $500 contributions from Palma Nova; M. Austin Forman; American Marketing Westport, Ltd.; and National Resource Recovery, Ltd, on March 1, 2007. (Exhibit 1 attached to Report of Investigation) On his 2007 Q4 CTR, Respondent listed receiving another $500 contribution from the same four contributors; all dated November 7, 2007. (Exhibit 3)
7. On his 2007 Amended Q2 CTR, Respondent reported receiving a $500 contribution from Hartman & Tyner, Inc., on June 18, 2007. (Exhibit 5) On his 2007 Q3 CTR, Respondent reported a second $500 contribution from Hartman & Tyner, Inc., on September 24, 2007. (Exhibit 7)
8. In a sworn affidavit dated August 12, 2008, Respondent stated that he had received the checks at separate fund raisers and returned the excessive contributions once he realized that he had received them. (Exhibit 9) Respondent provided Investigator Oliver with copies of the checks that were used to reimburse the contributors for their excessive contributions.
9. Investigator Oliver also subpoenaed the records from Respondent’s campaign account at Valley Bank to obtain the official copies of the checks used to reimburse each contributor. The records show that on February 14, 2008, Respondent reimbursed Palma Nova (check #1012), M. Austin Forman (check #1013), National Resource Recovery (check #1014), and American Marketing Westport (check #1015) for their $500 excessive contributions. (Exhibit 10) The expenditures were listed on Respondent’s 2008 Q1 CTR. (Exhibit 11)
10. In addition, the subpoenaed records show that on May 13, 2008, Respondent reimbursed Hartman & Tyner (check #1021) for its $500 excessive contribution. (Exhibit 12) The expenditure is listed on Respondent’s 2008 F1 CTR. (Exhibit 13)
11. Although Respondent eventually returned the excessive contributions, it took him more than three months to return the first four contributions and more than eight months to return the fifth contribution. According to his attorney Mark Herron, the accountant who filed Respondent’s reports brought it to his attention. However, Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, does not provide an exception if the contributions are returned. The violation occurs when the excessive contribution is accepted.
12. Under these circumstances, I recommend that the Commission find probable cause that Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, on five occasions.
IV. Conclusion.
13. Respondent’s actions in this case were willful. Respondent was not only the candidate, but he was also the treasurer of his own campaign. As the court pointed out in Diaz de la Portilla v. Florida Elections Commission, 857 So. 2d 913 (3rd DCA 2003), the treasurer has the duty of maintaining complete and accurate records or all contributions and expenditures. Failure to review these records before accepting five excessive contribution shows that Respondent recklessly disregarded the requirements of Section 106.19(1)(a) or was plainly indifferent to its requirements.
14. On or about February 8, 2007, Respondent’s filing officer sent him a letter acknowledging receipt of his Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and Designation of Campaign Depositor form and advising Respondent to review the election laws. (Exhibit 14, p. 4 of 4) The letter stated:
All of the Division’s publications and reporting forms are available on the Division of Elections’ web site at htpp://election.dos.state.fl.us. It is your responsibility to read, understand, and follow the requirements of Florida’s election laws. Therefore, please print a copy of the following documents: Chapters 104 and 106, Florida Statutes, 2006 Candidate and Campaign Treasurer Handbook, 2007 Calendar of Reporting Dates, and Rule 1S-2.017, Florida Administrative Code.
15. On February 2, 2007, Respondent signed his Statement of Candidate form, acknowledging that he has received, read, and understands the requirements of Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. (Exhibit 15)
16. In his sworn affidavit dated August 12, 2008, Respondent stated that he had a copy of Chapters 104 and 106, Florida Statutes, and the Handbook for Candidates. He also stated that he had “read and reviewed” the election statutes and the handbook. (Exhibit 9)
17. Pages 24 of the 2006 Candidate and Campaign Treasurer Handbook states that a candidate may not, “Accept a contribution in excess of $500 from any one person per election.” Page 26 of the handbook states that is a violation for a candidate or campaign treasurer to “accept a contribution in excess of the limits prescribed by Section 106.08, F.S.”
18. Respondent should note that Section 106.265(1), Florida Statutes, provides that the Commission is authorized upon finding a violation of Chapter 104 and 106, Florida Statutes, to impose civil penalties in the form of fines not to exceed $1000 per count.
19. Respondent should note that in addition to the penalty provided for in Section 106.265(1), Florida Statutes, Section 106.19(2), Florida Statutes, provides for a civil penalty equal to three times the amount involved in the illegal act if a Respondent is found to have violated Section 106.19(1)(a), 106.19(1)(b), or 106.19(1)(d), Florida Statutes.
20. On August 26, 2008, staff mailed a copy of the Report of Investigation to Respondent in accordance with Section 106.25(4)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (2007). As of the date of this Staff Recommendation, Respondent has not filed a written response with the Commission.
III. Summary of Charges.
21. Under these circumstances, I recommend that the Commission find probable cause that Respondent committed five counts of violating Chapter 106, Florida Statutes.
Count 1:
On or about November 7, 2007, Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by accepting a contribution in excess of the legal limit, when he accepted a contribution in the amount of $500 from Palma Nova, after previously accepting a contribution from Palma Nova on March 1, 2007.
Count 2:
On or about November 7, 2007, Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by accepting a contribution in excess of the legal limit, when he accepted a contribution in the amount of $500 from M. Austin Forman, after previously accepting a contribution from M. Austin Forman on March 1, 2007.
Count 3:
On or about November 7, 2007, Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by accepting a contribution in excess of the legal limit, when he accepted a contribution in the amount of $500 from American Marketing Westport, Ltd., after previously accepting a contribution from American marketing Westport, Ltd. on March 1, 2007.
Count 4:
On or about November 7, 2007, Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by accepting a contribution in excess of the legal limit, when he accepted a contribution in the amount of $500 from National Resource Recovery, Ltd., after previously accepting a contribution from National Resource Recovery, Ltd. on March 1, 2007.
Count 5:
On or about September 24, 2007, Respondent violated Section 106.19(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by accepting a contribution in excess of the legal limit, when he accepted a contribution in the amount of $500 from Hartman & Tyner, Inc., after previously accepting a contribution from Hartman & Tyner, Inc. on June 18, 2007.
Respectfully submitted on September 26, 2008,

_________________________________________
Barbara M. Linthicum
Executive Director
Copy furnished to:
Barbara M. Linthicum, Executive Director
Cedric Oliver, Investigator Specialist

[Fred]

The FEC has completely gone overboard in their enforcement of the campaign finance laws.

First of all, enforcement only occurs when a complaint is lodged. As a result, it's become a court of retaliation, rather than an effective control over abuse.

Second, they seem to now determine any ANY violation is a WILLFUL violation, regardless of the circumstances. This is not the intent of the law.

You should try and keep up with the reporting requirements now being implemented by the FEC! Fines being levied because a candidate abbreviated 3 words in a disclaimer, which is allowed in other parts of the rules.

Take a look at almost any candidates filings online and you'll find violations, which to me tells me there is a problem with the system.