Andrea Peyser rides in Trump's limo in New Hampshire, and captures the three-time presidential almost-candidate talking like a candidate.

"Mr. Trump! We have a 21st birthday here!" someone shouted.

"Oh, a voter!" he said, evidently unaware that the voting age is 18. "Vote for Trump!"

Uttering the phrase "Vote for Trump" comes up to -- and almost crosses  - the line of what federal officials say could make him an officially declared candidate, something the reality television star who has shied away from disclosing detailed info about himself and his company has long avoided. 

The guidelines, from the Federal Election Commission:

Examples of activities that indicate that an individual has decided to become a candidate include, but are not limited to:

(3) The individual makes or authorizes written or oral statements that refer to him or her as a candidate for a particular office.

Trump adviser, Michael Cohen, also hugged the line of official candidatehood, with his recent trip to Iowa, which Texas Rep. Ron Paul said violated FEC rules.

This should, for now, put to rest speculation about whether Giuliani's recent establishment of an exploratory committee at the state level meant that he was somehow less than serious about running for president.

-- Josh Benson

"Only an 18 year career politician could dump almost $400,000 in cash into an election and try to call it petty cash," said Lamont's campaign manager, Tom Swan, in a statement.

Lamont has used a mere $500 of petty cash, according to the the campaign, although the candidate has pumped millions of his own money into the campaign.

I'm waiting to hear from Lieberman's campaign, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that their response will include the word "desperation."

--Jason Horowitz

Office of General Counsel

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street NW

Washington, DC 20463

RE: Formal Complaint Regarding Friends of Joe Lieberman

(Committee ID: C00235515)

Dear General Counsel:

Please accept this letter as a formal complaint regarding the apparent violation of Title 11 of the Code of Federal Regulations, section 102.11, by the Friends of Joe Lieberman committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman, individually. As set forth more fully below, the Lieberman committee has failed to account for more than $387,000.00 in supposed petty cash expenditures in violation of 11 C.F.R. §102.11. On behalf of the citizens of Connecticut and all federal taxpayers, it is hereby alleged:

Title 11 C.F.R. §102.11 (2 U.S.C. 432(h)(2)) (Petty Cash Fund) provides:

A political committee may maintain a petty cash fund out of which it may make expenditures not in excess of $100 to any person per purchase or transaction. If a petty cash fund is maintained, it shall be the duty of the treasurer of the political committee to keep and maintain a written journal of all disbursements. This written journal shall include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. In addition, if any disbursement is made for a candidate, the journal shall include the name of that candidate and the office (including State and Congressional district) sought by such candidate.

The Friends of Joe Lieberman committee, and Joseph I. Lieberman, individually have violated the clear and unambiguous terms of 11 C.F.R. §102.11 in at least the following three ways.

First, according to the FEC October Quarterly report filed on October 13, 2006, the Lieberman campaign has petty cash disbursements amounting to $387,561.00, which is roughly 8 percent of its total disbursements, or one out of every twelve dollars spent. On several occasions, petty cash disbursements greater than $100 were reported, as supposed payment for "volunteers." As summary of these disbursements from the Friends of Joe Lieberman report are attached hereto. These disbursements reflect patent violations of 11 C.F.R. §102.11.

Second, the report does not include the name and address of every person to whom any disbursement is made, as well as the date, amount, and purpose of such disbursement. Again, Friends of Joe Lieberman stands in clear violation of 11 C.F.R. §102.11.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, the Associated Press reported earlier today that Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun claims the cash was supposedly used pay to field coordinators who then distributed money to workers who were canvassing (Andrew Miga, Lamont Questions Lieberman's Spending, October 23, 2006). There is no evidence that the Lieberman committee kept and maintained a written journal of any kind regarding these disbursements as required by 11 C.F.R. §102.11. As I am sure you are aware, the rationale for this regulation is to, among other things, prevent the creation and utilization of slush funds for illicit purposes. The $387,561.00 involved here is a sum of supposed petty cash expenditures unprecedented in any race in our state's history. The Lieberman campaign's patent disregard for this regulation calls for the immediate investigation of this matter by your office to ensure that the voters of Connecticut can be fairly informed about the conduct of their elected officials.

I would appreciate you contacting me to confirm receipt of this complaint.

I thank you in advance for your attention to this pressing matter.

Sincerely Yours,

Thomas Swan

300 Reasearch Parkway, Suite 102

Meriden, CT 06450

As I suspected -- and an FEC spokesperson confirmed -- it was, in fact, the work of some overzealous "Draft Hillary" types who had gone ahead and registered the committee. The committee has not raised any money. But it got me wondering which other possible-potential-theoretical presidential contenders have inspired (or is it "inspired"?) drafters to go out and register them for presidential bids -- and which ones have not.

So herewith a list of the lucky proto-candidates with presidential committees (and apparently draft teams) and those without...

The Presidential Committee'd:
* Virginia Senator George Allen
* Wisconsin senator and favorite insurgent-Democrat-son Russ Feingold
* Ex-NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani
* Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
* Former Virginia Governor and chosen Anti-Hillary Democratic contender Mark Warner
The Presidential Committee-less:
* Indiana Senator Evan Bayh
* Delaware Senator and 1988 presidential contender Joseph Biden
* Kansas Senator Sam Brownback
* Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist
* Almost-President Al Gore
* Arizona Senator and 2000 presidential hopeful John McCain
* New York Governor George Pataki
* New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson
* Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney
* Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack

-- Lizzy Ratner

Stop Her Now, the most professional of the anti-Hillary operations, is now in debt. And the campaign of Jonathan Tasini, the liberal Clinton Senate challenger, had a remarkably poor first two months of fundraising, considering the wide attention he got on places like DailyKos and other energy centers of the Left.

He raised $24,236 from just 22 donors, according to his report to the Federal Elections Commission. (That's about $500 more than Stop Her Now raised, actually.) Barbara Ehrenreich maxed out. Lawrence Lessig chipped in. There was certainly no out-pouring of small-dollar Web support.

Tasini told me when he launched his campaign, "If there's a base of [financial and volunteer] support within about 30 to 60 days, I think this campaign has legs and is going to get off the ground.... This may not touch an nerve and then we're not going to be able to do it. We'll see."

Does 22 donors count as touching a nerve?

In the next breath, the story tells us that it's not the Philadelphia corruption investigation in which Sharpton briefly figured as a bit player.

And if it's a criminal investigation, that means it can't be the ongoing Federal Elections Commission probe. Hmm.

The Kerry candidacy lacks an agenda that addresses the problems facing this nation: a federal budget out of control, an economy that has lost more than two million jobs since George Bush took office, and a growing trade imbalance with record deficits that could threaten the nation's recovery. John Kerry has failed to highlight the reckless fiscal policies of the Bush administration, its ongoing assault on the environment and its anti-choice position that threatens a woman's right to control her body. Where is Kerry? We do not know, and neither do the American people. He seems to be conflict-avoiding rather than confrontational. Rather than hitting the Bush campaign on its glass jaw, Mr. Kerry is on the ropes, spitting out shifting positions-he doesn't own an S.U.V. but, well, his "family" does, etc.-that do not reflect the abilities or backbone of a man who served two decades in the U.S. Senate and who bested feisty contenders like Wesley Clark and Howard Dean in the Democratic primary. Where are his political instincts? There is no sense of mission or calling. Rather than seeing photos of a strong leader, Americans are treated to effete images of Mr. Kerry snowboarding or riding a fancy bicycle clad in spandex.

And so, despite the daily international humiliations and loss of American lives in Iraq, and despite George Bush's inability to answer any serious question without his master puppeteer, Dick Cheney, by his side, Mr. Kerry is trailing the President in the polls. Mr. Kerry will not get elected by being the smarter candidate; Al Gore tried that. You cannot outsmart a shrewd and genuinely ignorant man like George Bush. Simply put, you must outwit him, outgun him and attack him. You must play harder and tougher than the Bush team. Is it too late? In a move that can only be seen as a desperate Hail Mary pass, the Kerry campaign is spending a record $27.5 million to purchase advertising that will blanket the country with 60-second ads to try to convince the American people that everything they've heard about John Kerry in the past month is wrong.

Can Mr. Kerry's team put back together a candidate that the Bush campaign has dismantled and desecrated? Buying up TV time, and cozying up with John McCain, won't convince voters. He needs to start telling the truth about the damage George Bush has done to America, at home and abroad. Only then will John Kerry find his moment. Meanwhile, the Senator should stay away from spandex.

Pataki's Pay-to-Pray Scam

Lobbyists, contractors, would-be power brokers and other members of the government industry are called on regularly to fork over big bucks to support the re-election campaigns of state lawmakers. The name of the game is pay-to-play-if you want to be considered for state contracts, you have to show your appreciation through regular campaign contributions.

Pay-to-play is a sleazy, horrid little game. But the Pataki administration has managed to drag it further into the muck. State political insiders are calling it pay-to-pray. As revealed in the New York Post, Mr. Pataki runs something called the Governor's Prayer Breakfast Trust Fund. Don't worry if you've never heard of it. Until recently, neither had State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. That's pretty significant, because the Governor's Prayer Breakfast Trust Fund has never registered with the State Attorney General's office. Charities that solicit money from the public are obliged to file with the State Attorney General.

The Governor's Prayer Breakfast Trust Fund certainly doesn't stint in the soliciting department. Its latest venture is a prayer breakfast on May 11 featuring First Lady Laura Bush, whose qualifications as a preacher have remained as hidden as the trust fund itself. Pious lobbyists are being asked to pay up to $1,000 for tables at the event. Among those soliciting these prayerful individuals are government employees. They do their soliciting, no doubt, on their own time, for the love of God and Governor.

According to the Post, the Prayer Breakfast Trust Fund has been raising money since 1995 to pay for prayer breakfasts on state property. Nobody knows precisely how the money was spent, because the fund didn't register with Mr. Spitzer's office, which means it did not file paperwork showing how the funds were used. At first, Mr. Pataki's people insisted that this worthy organization wasn't required to file unholy paperwork. But now, perhaps after searching their souls, they say they'll do what needs to be done.

It says something about the state of state government that a prayer breakfast can become enmeshed in the unseemly world of pay-to-play. Mr. Spitzer is right to ask questions about this little-known outfit. Who has been paying for these events, and how has the money been spent? At the moment, only God knows.

Feds Slap Sharpton

Al Sharpton's failure to make any impression outside New York City in his pompous bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination was no surprise. His charade doesn't travel well, despite being given a free pass by journalists who were too cowed to challenge the candidate on his long association with virulent anti-Semites. Now the Federal Election Commission has decided that it, too, is not buying Mr. Sharpton's act: In an apparently unprecedented, and unanimous, decision, the commission has voted to deny Mr. Sharpton matching funds in taxpayer money for his abandoned campaign. The F.E.C. had previously agreed to give the candidate $79,000, to add to the $100,000 it had already made available to him. Not only is the commission putting a stop on the $79,000 payment; it is also considering demanding back the original $100,000. Talk about a victory for good government.

What brought about the change? The F.E.C. ruled that the good reverend violated campaign-finance laws by spending approximately $100,000 of his own money on the race-double what is allowed if a candidate wants to receive matching funds. Of course, Al Sharpton's finances have always been smoke and mirrors, and this time it's no different: He's claiming that some of his own money was spent for non-campaign-related events. And true to form, having flouted laws and rules that other candidates must obey, he is hinting that the commission is singling him out because of his race.

Needless to say, Mr. Sharpton's campaign left behind a string of debts-at least $600,000 worth, including salaries to staff members. Not that the candidate worried about the little people during his cross-country jaunts. Unlike most candidates, who sleep in budget hotels, Mr. Sharpton blew thousands of dollars of campaign money on four-star accommodations: over $7,000 for three days at the Four Seasons Hotel in Los Angeles; over $3,000 for one night for himself and a few aides at the Mansion on Turtle Creek in Dallas. All this while he was going out and comparing himself to Nelson Mandela. The campaign also paid thousands of dollars in airfare and hotels so that Mr. Sharpton's personal filmmaker could record his every move.

It's no wonder that the F.E.C. decided that taxpayers should not have to contribute to the Al Sharpton publicity tour. Mr. Sharpton promises a court challenge to the F.E.C's decision. In fact, he claims he's owed a grand total of $250,000 in matching funds. It's one thing when Al Sharpton uses up his own hot air on his self-promoting junkets. It's another when he tries to use taxpayer money. How low will he stoop?

campaign-finance reform bill, it tries to bring to life a teratoid of a law yet

more Rube Goldberg–ian than its predecessor. The latest legislative fetus has

five eyes, seven arms and no feet. Soft money, hard money, state money,

national money, issue money, candidate money, party money-this is not a

campaign-finance reform law, it is a campaign-finance deform law.

One set of campaign-financing rules if your opponent is

rich, and another if he's not? Price controls on TV ads run at certain hours of

the day, but not the rest of the time? You kiddeth me. Who can understand it,

much less enforce it? If this Supreme Court were not so dead-set against

abortions, you could count on it to do a little dilation and curettage on the monster

aborning.

This is not written to disparage the motives of the Senators

and outside organizations that have been killing themselves for years trying to

halt the buying of elections. The problem is real; it's the solution that's

unreal. A century of trying should have demonstrated by now that we cannot

regulate finance. What with the persistent sabotage of any kind of sane

legislation by the lawyers and the Supreme Court, plus the ability of

special-purpose organizations of every stripe and political hue to work their

way around any draftable set of regulations, no campaign-regulatory law will

stand.

John McCain is already making remarks about how he expects

that, if his bill ever becomes law, in 20 or 25 years it will have been reduced

to a nullity by people with oodles of money and great electoral zeal. If one of

the two principal sponsors of the present bill gives the thing such a short

life expectancy, we can presume that any bill which does pass Congress and is

signed by that poor excuse for a President will accomplish little more than

enlarging that lethargic, sludge-holding pond called the Federal Election

Commission.

We need a different approach, one that prescinds from

attempts to regulate the collecting and spending of campaign money. Regulation

of that kind hasn't worked, isn't working and won't work.

If we can't regulate money, we can cancel it out, nullify

its power to win elections or cause their loss for the want of it. Under such a

scheme, all restrictions on Presidential primary- and general-campaign

contributions would be abolished. Anybody and anything could give as much and

as often to any candidate or any political party. The only exception which

might be inserted into the new law would be a ban against contributions by

foreign nationals, governments or companies, although even this prohibition in

an age of such porous national boundaries may be unwise and unworkable.

The only string attached to this otherwise unfettered giving

would be a requirement that anyone or anything making a contribution, or

promising to make a contribution, to a candidate or political party must report

the contribution or the promise to the F.E.C. within one hour of doing so,

under pain of criminal and civil penalties. Likewise, independently of a

contributor, every recipient must report every contribution, or the promise of

one, within one hour to the F.E.C. Neither is an onerous condition in the

Internet era.

The F.E.C.'s work would then consist of two things. First,

it would police what's going on to make sure that contributions and commitments

to make a contribution have been reported within the one-hour grace period. A

campaign contribution would be defined as money going to any endeavor that can

reasonably be called an effort to get somebody elected, whether or not the

candidate's name is mentioned. There would be no false distinction between

"issue" ads and ad ads. Money for any

kind of a campaign expenditure would count, whether lawn signs, issue ads,

lapel buttons, bus rentals or nonpartisan "educational" mailings.

The F.E.C.'s second task after receiving the information

would be to see to it that all the other candidates in the race had an equal

amount of money to spend. This must be done immediately, thereby ensuring that

all the candidates have the same amount of money for their campaigns at all

times. No candidate-regardless of the source of his or her funds-would be able

to outspend any other candidate, and winning wouldn't be due to superior

fund-raising prowess.

Under this system, a candidate would need only to raise

enough money at the beginning of the campaign to qualify for

campaign-equalization money in the primary-election period. This minimum money

qualification would sift out the crackpot candidates and wouldn't be

burdensome, since every serious candidate has either enough of a grassroots

organization to scare up the required earnest money or (which is now illegal)

has a millionaire backer who can provide the amount needed to qualify.

Many will object to using any taxpayer money to pay for an election campaign. Government

funds are used to pay for everything else under the sun, so why not this?

Putting up money to pay for clean elections is akin to putting up money to make

sure there is no vote-stealing. It should be looked upon as an ordinary cost of

democracy.

Under this arrangement, there is no question about passing

Constitutional muster. If the Supreme Court believes that protected speech

includes giving and spending money, all that is done here is to see to it that

no candidate will have her speech drowned out by somebody else with more

dollars.

In a social situation where it seems like 5 percent of the

population now owns about 75 percent of the country, conditions are ripe for

the politics of envy, resentment and brigandage. If this campaign reform worked

as intended, the nation's propertied interests would lose the fulcrum they've

had to maintain themselves in positions of power and influence.

Even those who might

agree that this is a good thing may back away from the huge costs that it may seem,

on first glance, to entail. But we don't know it will work out that way; it

might cost very little. The knowledge that every dollar a contributor gives to

a candidate is a dollar going into his opponent's campaign may discourage

contributions, since political gift-giving will have been made literally into a

zero-sum game. It might work out that, in the long run, such a law so

diminishes campaign expenditures that folks may want to extend it to all federal elections.

Elections run by these rules ought to be somewhat different

from the ones we've had for many years now. Since no one will enjoy a

significant money advantage, we ought to see a shift from how much money you

can raise to how smart you are at spending it. Assuming that the candidates' TV

and direct-mail advertising will more or less cancel each other out, we can

expect to see much more effort put into getting out the vote and other

human-to-human campaign activities. It's been so long since campaigns have felt

a necessity to put hands on warm bodies that the knowledge of how to do it has

been all but lost. Who knows? Before it's over, we may yet again see torchlight

parades and hear bands playing "Hail, Hail, the Gang's All Here."