-
"This New Hampshire Republican Should Be a 2016 Kingmaker. Instead, He’s Radioactive."
The scandal that could derail Rep. Frank Guinta's political career.
By Russ Choma, Mother Jones, June 8, 2015
Frank Guinta greets supporters at Saint Anselm College, in Manchester, New Hampshire, on October 27, 2014. Jim Cole/AP
As the sole GOP congressman from New Hampshire, Rep. Frank Guinta should be having plenty of fun in the run-up to the state's bellwether primary. Ordinarily, Republican presidential hopefuls would be lining up to woo him for his endorsement and begging him to host events to introduce them to New Hampshire voters. Instead, he has quickly become one of the state's least popular Republicans, due to a campaign finance scandal that threatens to derail Guinta's political career.
The other Republican in New Hampshire's congressional delegation, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, has called on Guinta to resign. Meanwhile, the publisher of the famously conservative New Hampshire Union Leader, who has steadfastly supported Guinta's political career since his days as mayor of Manchester, recently signed his name to a brutal six-word editorial about Guinta: "Frank Guinta is a damned liar."
The controversy stems from the news that Guinta reached an agreement with the Federal Election Commission in which he acknowledged that when he sank $355,000 of personal funds into his first congressional run in 2010, it wasn't actually his money. It was his parent's money. A federal candidate can spend an unlimited amount of his or her own money on their races. Guinta's campaign agreed to repay the funds in full and pay a $15,000 fine. As far as the FEC is concerned, the issue is settled. So why is Guinta catching so much flak from his own party over a campaign violation that occurred almost six years ago?
Because he lied about it repeatedly.
And not just to FEC investigators—but also to fellow Republicans. Powerful Republicans. Since the FEC complaint was first filed against him five years ago, Guinta has consistently and unambiguously insisted that he did nothing wrong. Along the way, he convinced many prominent Republicans—including House Speaker John Boehner, who recently used his political action committees to donate $14,000 to Guinta's campaign—to go to bat for him. Not only did he risk his own credibility, he risked theirs as well.
Guinta told the FEC that he had personally given his own campaign $110,000 and loaned it another $245,000. But because these funds actually came from his parents, this was an illegal contribution. Though the FEC's case is done with Guinta, he could face a criminal investigation if it is determined that while trying to claim his parent's money as his own he failed to pay proper taxes or misled investigators.
Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the New Hampshire GOP, says he first spotted the problem back in the summer of 2010 when he noticed that Guinta had suddenly amended his personal financial disclosure to include a bank account valued between $250,000 and $500,000. His previous disclosures, as a House member and as the mayor of Manchester, had not included such significant assets.
"He had already loaned himself more money than he had ever shown having in assets," Cullen says.
It also seemed to Cullen and others in New Hampshire that it would be unlikely Guinta would have that much money at all. After college, he worked as a staffer for then-Rep. Jeb Bradley (R-N.H.) and earned a graduate degree in intellectual property (accruing tens of thousands of dollars in student loans, which he still is repaying) before becoming mayor, a job that paid about $72,000 a year.
"Frank was well known in the community and people were asking, 'Where's this money coming from?'" Cullen says.
Guinta's office did not return a request for comment, but according to Cullen, the lies started the night in July 2010 that Cullen discovered that Guinta had amended his financial disclosure report. In his role as an occasional Union Leader columnist, Cullen interviewed Guinta about where the money came from. According to Cullen, Guinta told him that he had saved the money through hard work and frugal savings and he said his previous failures to disclose this large bank account was "an inadvertent oversight."
"It was clear to me immediately that he was bullshitting," Cullen recalls.
But that was the story that Guinta stuck to. Not only did he continue to insist for years—to media outlets, politicians, voters, and the FEC— that he had earned the $355,000 he dumped into his campaign, he went on the offensive. Guinta won his race in 2010, defeating incumbent Democrat Carol Shea-Porter, who won her seat back in 2012. In 2014, Guinta challenged Shea-Porter and actually ran attack ad against her on this issue. "Carol Shea-Porter is lying about Frank Guinta's finances," the ad declared. "The House Ethics Committee 100 percent cleared Frank Guinta. He's in 'full compliance.'"
Never mind that the House Ethics Committee is not the Federal Election Commission and that it might not have investigated him in the first place. The ad conveniently failed to mention that Guinta was still under investigation by the FEC.
When Shea-Porter pushed him in a debate on whether the FEC was investigating him, he dismissed her and derided FEC investigations as Democratic dirty-trickery.
"The FEC has thousands of complaints because this has become a strategy by Democrats across the country to file complaints against Republicans," Guinta said. "What I really think is that people want to get back to substantive public policy issues, but I decided to put the ad up because you're lying about my record and I think people in New Hampshire ought to know the truth."
Guinta won, rejoining Congress in January 2015.
The issue died down until a few weeks ago, when the FEC announced it had reached a settlement with Guinta, in which he acknowledged that he had banked an illegal contribution. Still, Guinta has continued to insist he had done nothing wrong, despite literally agreeing with the FEC that he had. He claimed the money came from a "family pot" to which he and his siblings each have access.
This week, the FEC released the full results of its investigation, obliterating his alibi.
"Christine Guinta Raymond, Rep. Guinta's sister, represented that she was unaware such a family pot existed, let alone that she or either of her brothers enjoyed a legal or equitable right to access those funds," the FEC's investigator noted in a summary of his findings.
And Guinta's mother gave him the money in the form of checks that she wrote "loan" on.
Cullen says Guinta's reputation is shot and it will drive 2016 GOP candidates away: "What else is he lying to people about? I look at him and if he says the Red Sox won the game last night, I want to check the box score. He's just been so deceitful."
As recently as March, Guinta was hosting events for Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, and other 2016 GOP hopefuls. Last October, Bush personally donated $1,000 to Guinta's campaign. In February, Bush's super PAC, Right to Rise PAC, donated $5,200 to Guinta. Donald Trump donated $1,000 to Guinta's war chest last year.
Following the news that Guinta had settled with the FEC, Bush was not so kind. "Governor Bush does not believe Congressman Guinta's actions were appropriate. It is incumbent on public servants to be transparent and ethical," a spokeswoman said in a statement.
Guinta has, so far, refused to resign, and in Washington GOP leaders have tried to avoid the subject. On Thursday, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters he is waiting to see "all the facts" before reaching any conclusions. But the New Hampshire GOP chairman sent a letter to the group's executive committee saying that Guinta's "credibility has been irreparably damaged."
Whether Guinta gets to keep his federal job, he has certainly lost his role as a kingmaker in the Granite State.
Russ Choma is a reporter in the Washington bureau of Mother Jones covering money in politics and influence. He previously was a reporter for OpenSecrets.org, the Investigative Reporting Workshop, and the New Hampshire Union Leader.
link: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/06/frank-guinta-new-hampshire-campaign-finance-scandal
-----
"Frank Guinta should share his financial strategies with rest of us"
Seacoastonline.com - Letters - June 17, 2015
June 15 — To the Editor:
I’m mad at Frank Guinta. Not because he violated campaign contribution laws or won’t take responsibility for his actions or refuses to do the right thing and resign. I’m mad that he will not share his wonderful financial strategies with me and his constituents.
According to Frank, much of the money contributed to his campaign, from “the shared family” account, actually came from him over 40 years. That makes Frank around 4 years old when he made his first deposit to the account, possibly tooth fairy dollars? How many teeth can a kid have?
But even with the miracle of compounding interest a few hundred toothy fairy dollars at 6 percent over 40 years only gets you to $2,057 total, a long way from $325K. Frank must have some very good personal financial management skills. Too bad he didn’t exhibit those when he was mayor of Manchester and allowed the Verizon Center bonds to be downgraded to junk.
Hopefully Frank can put the personal skills to work repaying his parents, as ordered by the Federal Election Commission. Or maybe Frank can turn-in his wisdom teeth to the tooth fairy to jump start the repayment fund? He doesn’t seem to be using them these days.
Dave Potter
North Hampton, NH
-----
Representative Frank Guinta. Brendan Hoffman for The Boston Globe/File/2011
"Guinta campaign finance case underscores election panel’s dysfunction"
By Jennifer Skalka Tulumello, Boston Globe Correspondent, June 18, 2015
WASHINGTON — It took the Federal Election Commission more than four years to determine that Representative Frank Guinta of New Hampshire had violated campaign finance regulations by dipping into his parents’ savings to fund his 2010 campaign. Following that decision, released last month, fellow Republicans have called on Guinta to resign, criticizing him for lying and suggesting he is damaged goods.
But perhaps equally dented by the lengthy query is the FEC itself, which deliberated through three general election cycles — allowing Guinta to win his seat, lose it, and then win it again — before concluding that he should pay back the money plus a civil penalty.
“The public has a right to have this law enforced, and the FEC is not doing it,” said Lawrence M. Noble, who served as FEC general counsel for 13 years. “Taking five years on a case like this is unacceptable.”
The Guinta case provides a study in contemporary FEC dysfunction, say some experts, illuminating the political gridlock within the commission as well as the panel’s inability to press forward with vigor when a respondent fails to cooperate fully.
The FEC, which marks its 40th anniversary this year, was created after Watergate by Congress to provide a federal check on candidate fund-raising behavior. Its commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Gridlock there is so pronounced and institutional faith in the FEC so low that five of the six commissioners have served out their terms and are operating in a holdover status; the president hasn’t bothered with new appointments since 2013, and Congress has signaled its disinterest in refreshing leadership there.
In recent years, the FEC’s panel of three Democratic and three Republican commissioners has found itself hampered by the same partisan battles plaguing much of Washington, and beleaguered by its own bureaucracy. During a May meeting of the FEC, Commissioner Lee E. Goodman said plainly that he and his Republican colleagues had held matters they believed unfairly targeted GOP lawmakers, according to audio provided on the FEC website. He said he had tallied complaints to the agency and that they were heavily weighted against Republicans.
“I’m speechless,” responded Commissioner Ellen L. Weintraub, a Democrat who used her time during the meeting to propose a “neutral policy” requiring that most cases should be processed within a six-month window.
“It would never occur to me to go through our docket and do that kind of analysis,” she said of Goodman’s calculations. “I don’t think about our cases that way. We have no control over who files the complaints and who are our respondents.”
In Guinta’s situation, two complaints were filed within months of each other in late 2010. The FEC’s general counsel determined in May 2011 that there was sufficient cause to suggest Guinta did not have the $355,000 he had given his campaign committee, effectively launching an investigation.
“There is reason to believe that Guinta did not have enough personal funds to finance his loans and contributions to his campaign,” the general counsel’s office said in that report.
It then took almost three years, until February 2014, for the second general counsel report to summarize its findings: that while a candidate for federal office is permitted to make unlimited expenditures from personal funds, in Guinta’s case, he had tapped his parents’ kitty for the cash. He had not paid income taxes on dividends or interest earned from the relevant accounts, the general counsel concluded, and he lacked legal title to the funds held by his mother and father.
His mother, Virginia, “confirmed her understanding that the loans would be repaid,” the report also said.
The report hints, meanwhile, at some of the behind-the-scenes difficulty that contributed to the wait:
“During the course of our inquiry, we engaged in protracted negotiations with Respondents’ counsel to obtain the records and information” needed to assess Guinta’s assertion that he had some right to the funds in question. “Despite our best efforts, we were unable to obtain voluntarily more than a partial production of the records we sought.”
It took another 10 months — until December 2014 — for commissioners to vote in response to the general counsel report. A first vote was split three to three along party lines. The second tally, taken the same day, was unanimous.
But in both cases, the FEC redacted some of the notes attached to the votes, which might have provided explanation for the initial points of difference — say, a disagreement about how much a civil penalty might be or if the donors, in this case, Guinta’s parents, should also face a fine — among the commissioners.
Another five months passed until April 2015, when Guinta and his attorney agreed to the terms, including paying back the $355,000 and a $15,000 civil penalty.
Neither Guinta and his lawyer nor the FEC commissioners responded to requests for comment.
Lawrence H. Norton, who served as FEC general counsel from 2001 to 2007, said the staff and commission lack leverage when a respondent drags. Subpoena power can be granted, and the matter can be taken to court, but that, too, can take months to be resolved.
Still, Norton said, the length of this case seems outsized for the substance of the matter.
“I think that’s a long time to resolve any but the most complex matters or detailed investigations,” he said.
Norton said the FEC is sometimes reluctant to bring actions during an election campaign for violations about that campaign for the obvious reason that findings might sway the electorate. But three elections come and gone? That’s another story entirely.
“Their matters should be resolved as expeditiously as possible after that particular election,” he said. “This one obviously wasn’t.”
Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said in the Guinta case, the FEC’s failure to act earlier had “serious consequences” for voters. After all, Guinta has an honorific he never might have if voters knew during the 2010 contest that he had secured his campaign money improperly.
“They didn’t get the caliber of candidate that they deserve,” she said.
Though Republicans are distancing themselves from him, and the conservative New Hampshire Union Leader opined that, “Frank Guinta is a damned liar,” Guinta could nonetheless stand to benefit from the FEC’s slow processing of his case.
“When this much time passes between the alleged conduct and the settlement, I think the public loses interest and isn’t likely to view it as very serious or important,” Norton said. “Part of an effective justice system is timely justice. I think the system loses credibility.”
If, that is, Guinta doesn’t face additional congressional or law enforcement inquiries; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, filed a complaint this week with the Office of Congressional Ethics, asking it to examine whether Guinta has violated House rules or federal law.
In the meantime, the case has renewed the debate about what, if anything, can be done to repair the FEC’s reputation and functionality. One suggestion is for retired judges to take on the commissioners’ jobs, though reconstituting the congressionally mandated FEC seems a long shot.
Norton says the commission is moving in the right direction in discussing firmer benchmarks for completing cases and moving through the docket, per Weintraub’s and others’ suggestions. Though, ultimately, it seems the commissioners — the current panel at least, if Goodman’s remarks are any indication — are unlikely to even agree on that.
“I’m all in favor of changing the structure of the commission,” said Noble, who is now senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center. “I think it doesn’t work at all. But at the end of the day, it comes down to the quality of the commissioners and what they believe in.”
-----
"He must resign"
Seacoastonline.com - Letters - June 18, 2015
To the Editor:
This May the Federal Election Commission (FEC) found Congressman Frank Guinta guilty of breaking the law when he accepted a $335,000 campaign contribution from his parents. The maximum allowable contribution is $2,400.
Our Congressman has spent the last 5 years trying to cover this up, fabricating story after story about where the money came from. He has denied wrongdoing time and again, including accusing Carol Shea-Porter of lying when she raised the issue of the federal investigation during the last WMUR Candidates Debate. Not only did Guinta repeatedly deny that he was under investigation by the FEC, but he also blasted Shea-Porter during the last week of the campaign, airing a political ad accusing her of lying and assaulting his character. Lo and behold, we now find out she was telling the truth and it was Guinta who was lying. Guinta brazenly lied all his way to Washington.
Though Guinta recently signed an agreement with the FEC, explicitly admitting guilt, and agreed to pay a $15,000 fine “to get this behind him,” he continues to deny any wrongdoing. Most recently he claimed the money was in a “shared” account (with his parents)—though he did not have direct access to it, nor did he pay taxes on it. This week the FEC released its findings. While Guinta insists that the money in the account was his, his mother disagrees. She states that the money belonged to her and her husband; it was a loan (an illegal loan), and they expected their son to pay it back (which he hasn’t).
Guinta wants to put this whole episode behind him, but many in his own Party disagree. Five newspapers and the top elected Republican in the State, Kelly Ayotte, have all called for Guinta to resign. Guinta must stop abusing the public trust. He must resign now.
Beth Olshansky
Durham, NH
-----
"Frank the Tank: Guinta rolls over Republicans"
NH Union Leader, Editorial, July 5, 2015
Some people are beginning to call U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta "Frank the Tank."
Oblivious to all appeals to spare New Hampshire's Republican Party - his party - from the needless burden and embarrassment his continued presence in office creates for the GOP, "the Tank" just grinds on.
The word "selfish" also comes to mind.
The Tank also reminds us of the George Costanza character in the Seinfeld TV series.
Having quit a job, he decides to return to work the next day and, crouching down to hide his face, hopes no one will remember that he had left.
Having been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and then lying to his constituents about it, the Tank had his hand out last week, requesting constituent donations.
To help him repay his parents the $355,000 he illegally reported as his own? No. The Tank says he needs the money to help fight the Democrats! He is running for re-election!
The word "incorrigible" also fits the Tank.
Giving money to this guy is just about the last way for Republicans to compete with the Democrats.
-----
"More smoke and mirrors from un-Frank Guinta"
Seacoastonline.com - Letters - July 7, 2015
July 2 — To the Editor:
Frank Guinta recently touted his amendment to the Interior Appropriations Act (HR 2822) to increase funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Certainly an accomplishment worth touting—if it actually had been an accomplishment. Alas, it was more of what we’ve come to expect from Mr. Guinta—a continuing effort to bamboozle and trick us. In short, another lie.
To explain, Mr. Guinta offered an amendment (H.AMDT.536) to increase funding for land acquisition by $16 million offset by reductions elsewhere. Four minutes later he withdrew it. Why? Because Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA), chair of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, opposed the amendment, objecting that “this amendment might leave advocates on both sides of the aisle with some difficult and unnecessary choices.” Mr. Calvert offered to work with him during the conference process, and so Mr. Guinta agreed to withdraw it.
Conference outcomes are notoriously uncertain, and the Senate often obstructs even amendments that pass the House, let alone withdrawn amendments. So this is nothing to brag about. In fact it’s nothing at all. It’s sleight of hand, hot air, smoke and mirrors—all part of a ploy by unfrank Guinta to seem effective.
The pattern of lies continues. Guinta was found in violation of campaign finance laws, but lied about it for five years, claiming to have been found compliant, and now he tries to take credit for a withdrawn amendment. We can’t trust a word he says. Mr. Guinta should do us all a favor and resign.
Susan Mayer
Lee, NH
-----
"Guinta's fundraising drops after campaign financing troubles"
July 16, 2015
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — Frank Guinta has seen a significant decline in individual campaign donations since the Federal Election Commission concluded that he accepted $355,000 in illegal campaign donations from his parents.
Guinta insists the money for his 2010 campaign belonged to him because for years he contributed to and managed a "family pot" of money, but the FEC fined the Republican $15,000 and ordered him to repay his parents, according a settlement made public in May.
Reports filed this week show his total contributions for the second quarter amounted to $114,000 — less than half the amount he took in during the first three months of the year. He received money from 16 individuals in the last three months, compared with 105 individual donations the previous quarter. He also took in $102,000 from political action committees in the second quarter, down from $182,000 the previous quarter. He spent $119,000, including refunding $7,000 to two PACs associated with House Speaker John Boehner, and ended the quarter with $307,050, about $5,000 less than what he started the quarter with.
Guinta was first elected in 2010, lost to Democrat Carol Shea-Porter in 2012, then defeated Shea-Porter last year to take the seat back.
During his first campaign, Guinta reported lending himself $355,000 and amended a disclosure form to add a previously unreported bank account worth up to $500,000, prompting questions from his Republican primary rivals and Shea-Porter. For five years, he flatly denied the money was an illegal campaign donation from his parents, but in the settlement agreement, the FEC concluded the money came from his parents' bank accounts.
Guinta maintains that his only mistake was improperly reporting money that was rightfully his. The FEC, however, said his own family contradicted those claims.
He has said he plans to run for re-election despite calls from prominent Republicans that he step down.
-----
Bob Perry of Barnstead, N.H., held a sign high as he was interviewed by WMUR-TV reporter Kristen Carosa outside the Gilman Library last Saturday in Alton. Fred Field for the Boston Globe.
"For Frank Guinta, what comes next is not clear"
By James Pindell Globe Staff July 16, 2015
RAYMOND, N.H. — If you caught US Representative Frank Guinta at the right moment last weekend, he might seem like any other politician on the campaign trail.
He held a town hall meeting for his constituents before walking through Raymond’s town fair for 20 minutes, watching kids demonstrate karate in the common. He bid $30 for a signed picture of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady in a silent auction for the local Boy Scouts. People recognized him, and one person approached to shake his hand. He bought ice cream.
But Guinta’s political life is anything but normal these days. The embattled Republican is on the verge of surviving a long-simmering scandal and keeping his seat — at least until next year’s election. After that, it’s unclear — and doubtful — whether Guinta can win another term.
For more than five years, the New Hampshire Republican denied he took $355,000 in illegal campaign contributions from his parents to fund his first bid for Congress in 2010. Two months ago, he admitted he did it in a signed agreement with the Federal Election Commission. Top Granite State Republicans, including US Senator Kelly Ayotte, called for his resignation.
Guinta’s problems are compounded by his district, which is one of the most politically competitive in the country. For the last three elections, New Hampshire’s First District has served as a revolving door for its US representative: Guinta lost reelection in 2012 to Democrat Carol Shea-Porter, who lost to him in 2014. She’s hinted she’ll run again, and Guinta has said he’ll also seek the seat.
They aren’t the only ones.
One of Guinta’s closest friends and donors, state Representative Pamela Tucker of Greenland, had previously turned down appeals to challenge Guinta in the primary. Today she still considers Guinta a friend, but she says she is “looking seriously” at running against him.
“Frank needs to figure things out,” Tucker said. “No matter if he says he is running for reelection, no one is sure what will happen.”
This week, the man Guinta defeated in the Republican primary last September, former dean of the University of New Hampshire Business School Dan Innis, filed paperwork to explore a run against him. Former Massachusetts US senator and New Hampshire US Senate candidate Scott Brown tweeted a picture of himself and Innis after a dinner together in late May.
Days earlier, on May 14, the New Hampshire Union Leader ran a photo of him with a single-sentence editorial: “Frank Guinta is a damned liar.” In addition to Ayotte, the state House speaker, Senate president, and, eventually, the chairwoman of the New Hampshire Republican Party called on Guinta to quit. Behind the scenes, top New Hampshire Republicans started to recruit candidates to run for a hypothetical special election.
Meanwhile, Guinta sat down with local news outlets, trying to explain that he admitted guilt only to move past the issue. He said he still believed he did nothing wrong, and it was his money.
A few weeks later, the FEC released its full report, in which Guinta’s mother and sister indicated he was lying. His family said Guinta used his parents’ money for his first congressional bid as a loan. This is illegal because that sum is well beyond the contribution limit for campaigns for US Congress.
Since that revelation, Guinta has been quiet, focusing on raising the money he will need to eventually pay back the loan and a $15,000 fine to the FEC. He also worked, apparently successfully, at withstanding a potential revolt in Washington. In May, US House Speaker John Boehner said he needed to review the facts of Guinta’s case before commenting to reporters about it.
Two months later, Boehner’s office is sticking to that statement. Often, party leadership will take committee assignments away from tainted members as punishment. But Guinta has not been stripped of a single post.
“By New Hampshire standards, this is an earth-shattering scandal, but in DC, this is small potatoes,” said David Wasserman, who analyzes US House races for the Cook Political Report. “Failing to properly disclose financial assets from your parents is met with a lot of yawns in Washington in an era when it is perfectly acceptable and legal for parents to put unlimited funds in a super PAC for their children if they wanted to.”
Back at home, Guinta has tried to just push through the awkwardness. There he was in a Fourth of July parade in Merrimack, where he stood next to Ayotte. They were inches apart shaking hands along the parade route.
Last week, Guinta held his first tele-town hall with constituents to explain his newest initiative: We the People, which he said is a 24-hour phone number for people to call with concerns. (When the Globe called the number, it went straight to voice mail.)
On Saturday, he held his first town hall meeting in months. The first 35 minutes of the hourlong meeting at the Alton library were devoted to his opening statements and a question on the Common Core curriculum.
Only a Democratic opponent, Shawn O’Connor, brought up the FEC settlement, shouting at Guinta as he quickly left the event. O’Connor said he held petitions with more than 4,000 constituent signatures asking Guinta to resign.
Guinta initially agreed to an interview for this story, but his staff later declined on his behalf.
However, one of his oldest friends, New Hampshire state Representative Will Infantine, said that the period has been very hard on Guinta, who has two young children.
“The roughest part for him was the rush to judgment,” Infantine said. “The Union Leader’s attacks were especially hard. The thing is, fine, he took money from his parents and he wasn’t being paid off by some special interest or something. When I talk to people at BBQs this summer, people get that.”
“I don’t know where Frank goes from here,” Infantine added. “Sometimes in politics you have basically no friends.”
James Pindell can be reached at James.Pindell@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @jamespindell, or subscribe to his daily e-mail update on the 2016 campaign at bostonglobe.com/groundgame.
-----
"Fleeing Frank: Guinta couldn't fool GOP donors"
NH Union Leader, Editorial, July 17, 2015
Frank Guinta’s unbelievable defense of his illegal campaign donations is not fooling New Hampshire Republicans, and the proof is in his latest campaign finance report. Once again, paperwork reveals uncomfortable truths Guinta has tried to hide.
In the first quarter of 2015, Guinta raised $134,054 from 105 individual contributors. That report covered January through March. In late April, Guinta’s legal counsel signed a conciliation agreement with the Federal Election Commission acknowledging that Guinta violated campaign finance law when he loaned his 2010 congressional campaign $355,000 he had borrowed from his parents. That agreement came to light in May, and — poof! — Guinta’s individual donations dried up.
Guinta’s second quarter report shows that his individual donations totaled only $11,679 and came from only 16 people. Nine of those 16 donations were made in April before the story of his FEC fine for violating campaign finance laws broke.
From the first quarter to the second, his contributor total fell by 85 percent. The dollar value of his individual donations fell by 91 percent. So much for the idea that he could fool everyone by lying his way through the scandal.
Guinta’s PAC contributions also fell from $182,000 to $102,000, for a drop of 45 percent.
Guinta continues to bluster his way through his term, denying any wrongdoing and pretending all is well. One glance at his latest financial report shows that to be a fantasy.
As Guinta clings to that fantasy, Republican donors are looking for another horse to back in the 1st District. After this report, there is sure to be no shortage of them.
Comments:
DAVID BIGELOW said Friday, July 17, 2015 at 1:08 pm
It's good to know that people aren't as dumb as Frank thinks they are. Maybe besides being a liar he is a pathological liar so he thought since he believed his lies everyone else would to. Things that make you go hmmmm.
DAVID MCCONVILLE said Friday, July 17, 2015 at 1:12 pm
Dan Innis will make a great Congressman.
MICHAEL RALEIGH said Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 11:10 pm
Looking forward to Carol Shea Porter as our congresswoman.
Note: Comments are the opinion of the respective poster and not of the publisher.
-----
"WMUR poll: Voters sour on Guinta after campaign finance controversy - Many more want him to resign than stay in Congress"
By John DiStaso, WMUR.com - July 22, 2015
DURHAM, N.H. — U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta’s standing among residents of his district has plunged in the wake of his well-publicized campaign finance violations with more people wanting him to resign than stay in Congress.
A new WMUR Granite State poll, released Wednesday evening, shows that 44 percent of his constituents believe he should resign, 25 percent believe he should continue to serve for his current term, while 31 percent are unsure or do not know enough about the matter to say.
The poll also showed that only 5 percent of likely voters in the 1st Congressional District would vote for the Republican if he seeks reelection, while 55 percent would vote for someone else and 21 percent are unsure or do not know enough to say.
The University of New Hampshire Survey Center polled 249 residents of the 1st District July 7-20 in its first full survey taken since Guinta’s campaign finance trouble surfaced in mid-May.
In May, a WMUR Granite State Poll was partially taken before the Guinta campaign finance issue was made public, while some of the sample was surveyed after. It showed 30 percent of his constituents had a favorable opinion of him, while 40 percent had an unfavorable opinion.
The new WMUR Granite State Poll shows the view of Guinta in his district has further deteriorated, with 25 percent viewing him favorably, 49 percent viewing him unfavorably, while 5 percent were neutral and 21 percent did not know enough about him to say.
Guinta signed a conciliation agreement with the Federal Election Commission, which found that in 2010 he loaned his campaign $355,000 in contributions that came from his parents. Guinta maintained that the money was his and came from a “family pot” account in his parents’ names, to which he contributed over many years more than he received.
At the same time, however, Guinta agreed to pay a $15,000 fine and return the money by next spring.
The controversy prompted calls for Guinta’s resignation by U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Executive Councilor Chris Sununu, state Senate President Chuck Morse and Speaker of the House Shawn Jasper.
State Republican Party Chairwoman Jennifer Horn charged Guinta “lied and betrayed the public trust.”
Guinta has refused to resign and has said he may seek re-election next year. In recent weeks, former University of New Hampshire business school dean Dan Innis filed papers declaring his candidacy for the seat, which would set up a re-match of the 2014 Republican congressional primary.
Another Republican considering running is Deputy New Hampshire House Speaker Pamela Tucker.
On the Democratic side, Bedford businessman Shawn O’Connor has declared his candidacy. Former U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter has said she would run for the seat in a special election if Guinta resigns, but has not said if she would run in 2016 against Guinta or another Republican.
According to the survey center, residents of the 1st District are “fairly well-informed” about the campaign finance controversy. The polls showed 22 percent have heard a “great deal” about it, 32 percent have heard a “fair amount” about it, while 27 percent have heard “only a little” and 17 percent have heard nothing.
Among Republicans surveyed, 21 percent said Guinta should resign while 41 percent said he should remain in Congress to serve his current term.
If Guinta sought reelection, 11 percent of Republicans said they will definitely vote for him and 33 percent said they would consider voting for him, while an additional 33 percent would definitely vote for another candidate.
The poll also found 63 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of independents believe Guinta should resign, while 12 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of independents said he should consider to serve his term.
Also, no Democrats would vote for Guinta if he seeks re-election, while 3 percent would consider voting for him and 79 percent would vote for another candidate. Seven percent of independents would vote for Guinta and 20 percent would consider voting for him, while 50 percent would vote for another candidate.
-----
"Franked! Guinta kicks off reelection"
NH Union Leader, Editorial, May 6, 2016
If we’ve learned anything from Tom Cruise’s film career, it’s this:
All things end badly. Otherwise, they wouldn’t end.
Which brings us to Frank Guinta’s congressional career.
Yesterday, the Republican congressman kicked-off his reelection campaign with a two-day “Talk is Cheap” tour of Belknap and Carroll county businesses.
Guinta is right about the cost of talking. Yet he seems too stingy to part with a few words explaining how he could repay his parents for a loan that he had already repaid to himself.
Guinta’s campaign says the next campaign finance report in July will explain the $80,000 that Guinta put in his pocket, and then seemingly also gave back to his parents as part of an agreement reached with the Federal Election Commission a year ago.
Guinta lied about the source of his campaign loans for five years, and two successful runs for Congress. And now he won’t explain why his own campaign finance reports show a double repayment of more than $80,000.
Unless Shawn O’Connor’s increasingly bizarre challenge to Democrat Carol Shea-Porter somehow catches on, Rich Ashooh has the best chance to prevent Guinta/Shea-Porter Part IV.
Guinta’s serial dishonestly would normally doom his changes for reelection. But in a year when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump battle for the White House, voters haven’t made credibility a top priority.
-----
“FEC emails: Guinta's legal team asked to slow probe of finances”
By Dan Tuohy, New Hampshire Union Leader, May 22, 2016
MANCHESTER - U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta's lawyer urged the federal agency investigating his campaign finance violations to put the case on hold until after his re-election bid in 2012, according to newly released documents.
The stall, in a case that would drag on another few years, is at odds with Guinta's claim that he did all he could to resolve and hasten the Federal Election Commission probe.
"I have been watching the polls in NH. Very close race," Cleta Mitchell, Guinta's counsel, emailed the FEC. "I'm wondering if we could wait until after the election re submitting something."
The email is part of documents in the case requested by the Union Leader and released under the Freedom of Information Act. The FEC is keeping about 1,780 pages confidential, citing exemptions that include attorney work product, information related to the conciliation process, and records with personal information.
From the first complaint lodged with the FEC in August 2010, the available records show a hurry-up-and-wait pattern for both the embattled congressman and the commission.
In her email on Oct. 11, 2012, Mitchell indicated hopes for a post-election resolution "to end this whole thing if we could."
Mitchell wrote: "It is entirely possible that if Rep. Guinta loses the election, he will want to do something other than going thru the submission we discussed re protecting privacy of the bank records of family pot. I just got to thinking that the outcome of the election will definitely color his thinking and his instructions to us as counsel."
But Guinta says he took proactive steps to resolve the case as soon as possible.
"Since the FEC complaint I have worked diligently to resolve this issue," the congressman said in a May 2015 statement. "Even when out of public office, I made proactive efforts to resolve the matter."
Guinta's chief of staff, Jay Ruais, said in a statement issued Saturday that the matter was in the past and reiterated the congressman's position.
"Congressman Guinta made many attempts, beginning on Sept 27, 2011, to resolve this issue in an expedited manner," Ruais wrote.
"This issue has since been resolved, and the Congressman remains focused on solving the pressing issues facing Granite Staters."
Guinta did lose the 2012 election, but an end to the case was far from in sight.
Almost five years from the first complaint, filed by Derry Republican Christopher Wolfe, the FEC concluded Guinta broke the law by accepting $355,000 in illegal contributions from his parents. He was fined $15,000 and ordered to refund the illegal donations to his parents' account, which he has now done.
Guinta still maintains he had an equitable interest in the "family pot" of funds. The FEC, after inspecting some of the financial records it sought from Guinta, rejected his argument.
The documents released this week under the FOIA request show Guinta's attorney was reluctant to produce certain records and repeatedly pushed to ensure that personal financial records would not be made public. Her email above was part of a thread about keeping records, particularly those belonging to Guinta's parents, confidential.
The length of the investigation and repeated efforts to retrieve and review financial records even had attorneys on both sides talking about delays.
"As you know, at your request, we have been trying to meet with you to discuss MUR 6440 (Guinta) since the end of May," Tracey L. Ligon, an attorney for the FEC, wrote Mitchell on July 11, 2012. "We had hoped to finally meet today at a meeting we scheduled three weeks ago on June 19. However, you informed us this morning that your associate had an unanticipated obligation that warranted rescheduling."
Mitchell's reply was more curt. "Yes, I know. I've apologized but it couldn't be helped. I can meet on July 17, at 11 am and I just need to confirm with my partner as soon as I can reach him. But please - let's not start talking about delays when discussing MURs. The FEC still hasn't concluded at least one of my client's MURs filed four years ago. The delays go both ways as we all know."
By March of 2013, the FEC was still trying to review financial documents requested in the case.
"In addition, I want to make a final appeal for the following information, and this is simply a request for facts, not attorney work product," FEC attorney Tracey L. Ligon wrote. "(1) Would the respondents provide a list of disbursements from assets in the 'family pot' to Frank Guinta, along with the date, amount, and a description of the purpose of any such disbursements?; and (2) Would the respondents explain whether, and to what extent, proceeds from the December 2008 sale of property previously owned by Richard and Virginia Guinta in Barnegat Light, New Jersey were part of the funds at issue in the matter."
Mitchell responded by asking the FEC to confirm that its investigators' notes are not subject to disclosure under FOIA.
"We have already provided our summary demonstrating that there were sufficient assets in the Guinta family pot to support the funds withdrawn for use in his campaign," Mitchell wrote back. "We don't understand why that is not sufficient for these purposes."
Guinta's attorney outlined the "family pot" defense early in the case. In early 2012, records show she maintained - as Guinta continues to contend - that the fund included more than $100,000 belonging to him, and that the funds appreciated to more than $400,000 with his assistance and active involvement.
The "constructive trust" funds in question included $2,239.82 in savings Guinta's mother held in trust for him in 1980, shares of Singer Company stock set aside for him by his maternal grandfather, $4,250 from Montgomery Township High School as a payment for personal injuries sustained by Guinta, $13,270 from a certificate of deposit held by his mother for Guinta, and $19,500 from his parents' sale of property in 1993.
Guinta's parents loaned him the $355,000 from 2009 to 2010. Guinta amended his financial disclosures to reveal a bank account of between $250,000 to $500,000, which caused an immediate ruckus from opponents.
Guinta told the Union Leader that he and his wife had saved up the money themselves. He denied that any of the money came from his parents.
"To answer that directly," Guinta said, "the answer is no."
At another point in 2010, Guinta told the Union Leader that the money came from bank accounts he opened himself between 1996 and 2004. And when the "mystery bank account" first came to light, Guinta's campaign said the money came from Guinta selling some of his stocks. Guinta said his campaign manager had misspoken.
Guinta has also denied that proceeds from the 2008 sale of his parents property in Barnegat Light, N.J., was commingled in the fund.
The FEC requested an explanation whether the property sale proceeds constituted part of the funds under investigation. Records released do not shed any further light on the property sale.
Guinta paid Mitchell's law firm, Foley & Lardner, $149,152 in legal fees since 2011, according to FEC expense reports. He paid about $60,000 in legal fees over the past year.
Guinta was first elected in 2010. He lost in 2012 to former Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter of Rochester. He won a rematch in 2014, and he is running for re-election this year.
Former BAE Systems executive Rich Ashooh of Bedford, one of those who ran against Guinta in 2010, is challenging Guinta for the GOP nomination. Shawn O'Connor of Bedford and Shea-Porter are running for the Democratic Party nomination.
-----
“Guinta’s emails: More lies are not a surprise”
NH Union Leader, Editorial, May 25, 2016
Dan Tuohy’s story in the New Hampshire Sunday News exposing Rep. Frank Guinta’s efforts to stall a Federal Elections Commission investigation into his illegal campaign finances comes as no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to Guinta’s five-year campaign of lies.
Tuohy reported on emails from Guinta’s legal counsel asking the FEC in 2012 for a delay in submitting financial records until after Election Day.
“It is entirely possible that if Rep. Guinta loses the election, he will want to do something other than going thru the submission we discussed,” Cleta Mitchell wrote.
So if Guinta lost, he’d either turn over the bank records or just admit his mistake and pay the fine. Yet, when Guinta lost to Carol Shea-Porter in 2012, he dragged his feet for another three years before finally admitting that he funded his first congressional campaign with money from his parents’ bank account. By that time, voters had returned him to Congress.
Guinta has said all along that he “worked diligently to resolve this issue” and his staff insist that Guinta wanted to “resolve this issue in an expedited manner.” Just more Guinta lies.
Guinta lied on his financial disclosure forms about where he got the money to loan to his 2010 campaign. He lied to the public and the press to get elected. He stalled the FEC in an effort to get re-elected. And he used the cover of those lies to get back into Congress. He continues to deny any wrongdoing.
Enough already!
-----
“Guinta faces fresh campaign finance complaint”
By Dan Tuohy, New Hampshire Union Leader, June 22, 2016
U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta, R-NH, is facing a new campaign finance complaint based on how he settled an old one: repaying, per order of the Federal Election Commission, the $355,000 in illegal loans his parents made to his committee in 2010.
The FEC fined Guinta $15,000 and ordered him last year to refund the loans to his parents’ account. Guinta paid the fine, and repaid the $355,000 to the family fund in a lump sum on Jan. 15, 2016.
In the new complaint, former state Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen said he wants the FEC to investigate alleged finance allegations related to Guinta previously repaying himself $81,500 of the original loan amount, as first reported by the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Cullen said he mailed the complaint to the FEC on Tuesday.
“By not reimbursing the committee, Frank Guinta illegally received and retained $81,500 in contributions to his campaign for his personal use,” Cullen contends in the complaint. “In effect, he paid himself this amount twice.”
Guinta’s chief of staff, Jay Ruais, told the Union Leader, when it first reported the $81,500 in April, that there was nothing new with the funds. He said the FEC was aware of the past repayment, and that the $81,500 would be addressed in the July quarterly report filed with the FEC.
Ruais said Guinta is in full compliance with the settlement agreement with the FEC.
“We can’t comment on a complaint that hasn’t been received or reviewed,” he said in a statement. “Every election cycle, hundreds of these complaints are filed with zero merit or purpose beyond generating negative headlines. Frank remains focused on issues that truly matter to Granite Staters, such as the latest paltry jobs report, and New Hampshire’s heroin epidemic.”
The allegations Cullen is asking the FEC to investigate are “the apparent illegal use of campaign funds by the committee for the personal benefit of Frank Guinta,” and possible improper use of general election funds in a primary election.
Cullen said that a candidate may receive salary payments from campaign funds, but a federal office-holder cannot do so under the finance laws.
Guinta, a former Manchester mayor, was elected in 2010, lost re-election in 2012, and then won a second term in 2014.
In 2010, his parents contributed $355,000 in a series of checks to his campaign committee. A Derry Republican who supported one of his GOP primary opponents in 2010 filed the first complaint with the FEC. The director of the state Democratic Party filed a second complaint in December of that year.
The FEC concluded in a 6-0 decision last year that Guinta broke the law by accepting excessive contributions. For the 2010 election, donors, including family members, were limited to contributing $2,400 per the primary and the general election.
Guinta’s attorney argued that the congressman had an equitable interest in the fund, a defense that the FEC, upon inspecting financial documents that Guinta fought to keep exempt from public disclosure, roundly rejected.
To this day, Guinta maintains that he just made an error in how he reported the funds to the FEC. He claims the money is his.
In a statement posted to his campaign website last May, Guinta said, “I recognize the difficulty of this situation, and to all those expressing their concerns and frustration, I apologize.”
Guinta is running for re-election this year. He faces a GOP primary with four other candidates, his main rival being Rich Ashooh of Bedford, who ran unsuccessfully for the 1st District seat in 2010.
dtuohy@unionleader.com
- See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/Guinta-faces-fresh-campaign-finance-complaint-06222016#sthash.yFkV4A73.dpuf
-----
"New complaint charges Guinta with federal election law violations"
Former NHGOP chair Cullen says Guinta improperly kept $81,500 repaid by his campaign
By John DiStaso, WMUR News, June 22, 2016
A new campaign finance complaint against Rep. Frank Guinta has been filed with the Federal Election Commission.
MANCHESTER, N.H. —A frequent critic of U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta is filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging that the congressman illegally kept $81,500 of funds repaid to him by his campaign committee and improperly used general election funds for primary campaign expenditures.
Former state Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen charges in a document he said was mailed to the FEC on Tuesday that Republican Guinta “has illegally received and retained $81,500 in contributions to his campaign for his personal use. In effect, he paid himself this amount twice.”
Cullen, who chaired the NHGOP in 2007 and 2008, has criticized Guinta on social media since the congressman last year entered into a conciliation agreement with the FEC which stated that he violated federal election law by receiving excess campaign contributions from his parents.
The May 2015 conciliation agreement with the FEC, signed by Guinta’s attorney, says the 1st District congressman improperly used funds from a Guinta family account to finance his 2010 campaign.
Cullen’s complaint can be viewed here.
http://www.wmur.com/blob/view/-/40163712/data/1/-/i9lwf0/-/Cullen-FEC-complaint-vs-Guinta-PDF.pdf
WMUR.com provided Guinta spokesman Jay Ruais with a copy of Cullen’s complaint.
Ruais responded, “The campaign is in full compliance with the settlement agreement with the FEC.”
He said that because Guinta’s campaign has not received a formal notice of the complaint from the FEC and it has not been reviewed by Guinta or his attorney, he would have no further immediate comment on the allegations.
But, Ruais said, “Every election cycle, hundreds of these complaints are filed with zero merit or purpose beyond generating negative headlines. Frank remains focused on issues that truly matter to Granite Staters, such as the latest paltry jobs report, and New Hampshire's heroin epidemic."
The payments from the Guinta family fund to Guinta’s 2010 campaign totaled $355,000 in checks written by his parents. The FEC concluded that the funds were campaign contributions from them, far in excess of the legal limit for individual contributions. Guinta agreed to repay the $355,000, and announced early this year that his campaign committee had made full repayment to the family fund.
But Cullen’s complaint says that Guinta previously reported loaning his campaign $81,500, which was part of the $355,000. Between 2010 and 2015, the Guinta campaign committee repaid the $81,500 loan to Guinta. But the complaint says there is no record of Guinta then returning the money to his campaign before the campaign repaid the $355,000 to the Guinta family fund.
Guinta’s failure to return the $81,500 to his campaign committee, Cullen charges, shows that Guinta “illegally received and retained $81,500 in contributions from his campaign for personal use. In effect, he paid himself this amount twice.”
Responding to that point, Guinta spokesman Ruais reiterated a comment he first made on the subject in April.
“This issue was raised with the FEC at the time of settlement negotiations, and they insisted we repay the loan in full to the Guinta family fund,” Ruais said. “They did not want to address the prior repayment at that time.
“There is nothing new here,” he said. “Upon signing the conciliation agreement last year, the decision was made with the full knowledge of the FEC to deal first with completing the terms of the settlement.”
With the repayment of the $355,000 to the Guinta family fund, “That has been done,” Ruais said. “We have been in contact with the FEC as to the proper way to address the earlier payments. This will be handled and reported in this quarter."
The second quarter ends on June 30 and quarterly reports are due to be filed with the FEC by July 15.
Cullen, meanwhile, commented, “He should be required to cut the $81,500 check back to his campaign.”
Cullen’s complaint also charges that Guinta’s committee improperly used some funds reserved for general election expenses to repay the $355,000 to his parents.
The Guinta campaign’s 2015 year-end report lists cash on hand of $367,171, the complaint says. Cullen writes that a review of contributions received by the Guinta campaign between March 2015 and December 2015 shows that $87,800 was designated for use during the general election.
That means that at the end of 2015, only $279,371 in contributions for the primary election period was available to make the $355,000 payment to the Guinta family fund, Cullen wrote.
Cullen alleged that the use of general election funds for a primary election expense is an election law violation, and he wrote that he considers the $355,000 repayment a primary election expenditure.
http://www.wmur.com/politics/new-complaint-charges-guinta-with-federal-election-law-violations/40163732
-----
June 21, 2016
Daniel A. Petalas
Acting General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463
Re: Complaint Against Frank Guinta and Friends of Frank Guinta
Dear Mr. Petalas:
This complaint is filed against Frank Guinta, a candidate for the U.S. House from New Hampshire’s First Congressional District, and Friends of Frank Guinta, his principal campaign committee (the “Committee”), for numerous violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the “Act”), and the Federal Election Commission’s (the “Commission”) Regulations.
Specifically, I request that the Federal Election Commission (the “Commission”) investigate (1) the apparent illegal use of campaign funds by the Committee for the personal benefit of Frank Guinta in violation of 52 U.S.C. §30114(b)(1); and, (2) the violation of federal regulations prohibiting the use of general election funds in a primary election.
Factual Background
According to the Commission’s May 5, 2015 conciliation agreement with the Committee, in the 2010 Primary Frank Guinta improperly used funds from the so-called “Guinta Family Fund” to finance his campaign. These improper payments totaled $355,000 and were recorded on his campaign finance reports between June of 2009 and September of 2010. The loans were recorded on the Committee’s reports as loans from Mr. Guinta instead of their actual source, the Guinta Family Fund.
Over the course of the next several years, the Committee made direct payments to Frank Guinta totaling $81,500 in order to repay portions of the outstanding debts. In addition, Frank Guinta “forgave” $85,000 of debt in the 2014 Year End Report filed by the Committee. These actions reduced the total debt to $188,500, which was the loan balance due to Frank Guinta at the time the Commission imposed its settlement on the Committee in April of 2015.
In its 2015 July Quarterly Report, the Committee reclassified the outstanding loans due to Frank Guinta. In that report, the Committee eliminated the old loans and the remaining balance of $188,500 and recorded a new debt of $355,000 payable to the “Guinta Family Fund.” This action was taken pursuant to the conciliation agreement that Frank Guinta and the Committee entered into with the Commission.
According to its 2016 April Quarterly Report, the Committee issued a $355,000 payment to extinguish the debt owed to the Guinta Family Fund. Nowhere in that report, or any prior report, is there any payment from Frank Guinta to the Committee reimbursing the $81,500 in payments the Committee had made to him to extinguish a portion of the illegal loans. By not reimbursing the Committee, Frank Guinta has illegally received and retained $81,500 in contributions to his campaign for his personal use. In effect, he paid himself this amount twice.
Analysis
Pursuant to 11 CFR § 113.1(g)(1)(i)(I), the term “personal use” can include salary payments made to a candidate from his campaign, but “a federal officeholder, as defined in 11 CFR § 100.5(f)(1), must not receive salary payments as a candidate from campaign funds.” Mr. Guinta was holding office as a Member of Congress when all of the payments were made to extinguish the illegal loans. Mr. Guinta was also holding office as a Member of Congress at the time of the restated $355,000 loan to the Guinta Family Fund. Therefore, in either interpretation of when Frank Guinta received the $81,500 in excess funds, he has illegally received funds from his campaign committee and converted them for personal use in violation of 52 U.S.C. §30114(b)(1).
The Committee has also violated the Act and the Commission’s regulations with respect to the use of general election funds. In its 2015 Year End Report, the Committee stated it had cash on hand of $367,171.14. These funds were comprised of both primary election and general election contributions. The declared general election funds totaled $87,800, all of which were received between March 2015 and December 2015.
In the Committee’s 2016 April Quarterly Report, it reported that on January 15, 2016 the Committee paid the Guinta Family Fund $355,000. This action was required under the conciliation agreement in order to resolve the illegal loans made to the Committee by Frank Guinta in 2010. This payment was made during the 2016 Primary Election period. However, there was only $279,371.14 available to make that payment (the $367,171.14 cash on hand less the $87,800 of general election funds). The difference between the payment amount and the available primary funds was paid from general election contributions. This is a clear violation of 11 CFR 102.9(e)(2), which states that “regardless of the method used under paragraph (e)(1) of this section, an authorized committee’s records must demonstrate that, prior to the primary election, recorded cash on hand was at all times equal to or in excess of the sum of general election contributions received less the sum of general election disbursements made.”
As evidenced in the Committee’s reports, Mr. Guinta and the Committee were in violation of the foregoing regulation from January 15, 2016, when the payment was made, through the end of the quarter, when the Committee reported cash on hand of $76,206.68. In fact, as of March 31, 2016, the reported total of general election contributions to the Committee had grown to $107,000.
Both of these actions appear to be clear violations of the Act and Commission regulations. As such, we hereby request that the Commission open an immediate investigation into the illegal personal use of funds by Frank Guinta and the improper use of general election funds by the Committee.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Commission take steps to immediately investigate the potential knowing and willful acts outlined above by Frank Guinta and Friends of Frank Guinta, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2). In doing so, the Commission should find reason to believe Guinta and the Committee have violated the Act and the Commission’s Regulations, determine and impose appropriate sanctions for any and all violations, and enjoin both from any and all violations in the future. We also ask that the Commission impose such additional remedies as are necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance, and refer this matter to the U.S. Department of Justice as necessary. The foregoing is correct and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Sincerely,
Fergus Cullen
152 Boxwood Ln
Dover, NH 03820
Signed and sworn before me this _____ day of June, 2016
______________
NOTARY PUBLIC
-----
“New campaign finance complaint filed against Guinta”
Former GOP chairman raises new issues from 2010 campaign
By Josh McElveen, WMUR News, June 22, 2016
MANCHESTER, N.H. —U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta is facing new allegations involving an issue that that has dogged him and his campaign for years: campaign finance violations.
In 2015, Guinta agreed with Federal Election Commission findings that he accepted illegal donations from his parents, but the case might not be closed.
"He's got no credibility on these issues," former state Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen said. "He's the only one that seems to believe the lies that he's telling everybody."
Cullen has long questioned Guinta's campaign finances, and he has a thick file to show for it. That file has led to a new two-part complaint to the FEC.
"One, that Frank has transferred $81,000 in campaign money into his own pocket for his personal use," Cullen said.
Cullen said campaign finance reports show that Guinta personally loaned his campaign $81,000 during the 2010 congressional primary. The campaign repaid that money to Guinta in the following years.
But the $81,000 was also part of $355,000 in loans to Guinta's campaign in the days before the 2010 primary. Guinta continues to insist that the money came out of his own pocket.
"I knew it was my money," Guinta said in April 2015. "My family always knew it was my money."
Despite that claim, Guinta admitted on paper to campaign finance violations last year after an FEC investigation. He paid back the $355,000, including the original $81,000, to his parents.
In short, Cullen said, Guinta paid himself back twice and used general election campaign funds to do it, which leads to the other part of the new complaint.
"The second part is that he has used improperly general election campaign donations to pay a primary election bill, and that's against FEC regulations, too," Cullen said.
In response, a spokesman for the Guinta campaign said the campaign hasn't seen the complaints but said, "We are in full compliance with the settlement agreement with the FEC."
Even so, Cullen remains skeptical.
"Please don't go on my leg and tell me it's raining," he said. "There's just no credibility here, unfortunately."
Guinta is facing Republican Rich Ashooh in the upcoming primary. A pro-Ashooh PAC said it plans to send letters to Guinta donors Thursday to make them aware of the new complaint. It will also provide information about how to demand refunds.
-----
"Frank's family foundation fibs"
NH Union Leader, Editorial, July 19, 2016
Frank Guinta is showing all the originality of Melania Trump’s speech writer.
Facing the end of his political career, the Manchester Republican went back to raid the same cookie jar that helped him first get elected to Congress six years ago.
In 2010, Guinta was locked in a tight primary with Sean Mahoney and Rich Ashooh. He bankrolled his campaign on a series of loans totalling $355,000, which turned out to come from his parents’ bank account. That’s illegal, and after five years of lying and stalling, Guinta finally agreed to repay those loans last year.
As the Union Leader reported back in April, Guinta had already repaid himself $81,500 of his parents’ money. Dan Tuohy now reports Guinta has finally returned those excessive refunds, but he used his family’s money, not his own.
That is the same tactic that got him in trouble in the first place. In using his parents’ money to fund his 2016 campaign, Guinta isn’t just keeping $81,500 that doesn’t belong to him. He’s breaking campaign finance laws. Again.
In accepting money from his parents, Guinta is violating federal caps on campaign contributions.
You’re probably sick of reading about Guinta’s campaign finance shenanigans. He must be counting on voter fatigue to wash the details of his family’s finances into one great big blur. Meanwhile, he has an extra $81,500 to spend trying to keep himself in Congress.
He’s hoping Republican primary voters won’t care.
-----
Dan Tuohy's Granite Status: "Guinta's most recent financial disclosure raises questions"
By Dan Tuohy, NH Union Leader, August 18, 2016
U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta is claiming the “Guinta Family Fund” as a major asset, an account valued at between $250,000 and $500,000, on his 2015 financial disclosure statement.
It represents the loan repayment of $355,000 per the Federal Election Commission order finalized May 5, 2015, according to his campaign and office.
The FEC conciliation agreement required Guinta to amend reports “to reflect that the funds at issue were obtained from the accounts held in Guinta’s parents’ names.”
While Guinta has maintained that the money was his, and that he had an equitable interest in the funds, the FEC rejected this “family pot” defense.
In doing so, the FEC concluded the two-term congressman broke federal election finance law by accepting excessive illegal contributions from his parents during his 2010 campaign.
Guinta was fined $15,000 and ordered to repay the $355,000 within a year. He paid the fine last year. He cut a check for $355,000 in January of 2016 — though the asset, in one of seven Bank of America accounts, is listed on his financial disclosure statement for 2015.
Guinta campaign manager Jay Ruais, in an email, responded that Guinta is in full compliance with the FEC agreement and the account balance is the “Guinta Family Fund.”
Guinta is a signator on the account, as are his parents, Virginia and Richard Guinta, according to Ruais.
The Union Leader received a copy of Guinta’s 2015 financial disclosure statement from his congressional office. It is not yet posted on the U.S. House Clerk’s public disclosure website. Per the Ethics in Government Act, members of Congress must file a financial disclosure by May 16, 2016, for the calendar year 2015. Guinta requested and received a 90-day extension, which was up Aug. 14.
In 2010, his GOP primary opponents raised red flags when Guinta amended financial reports to highlight an account and personal loans to his campaign committee. Derry Republican Christopher Wolfe, who filed the first FEC complaint against Guinta, said documents did not exist at that time to show that Guinta had the means to loan his campaign so much money.
Wolfe said Wednesday it is interesting that the money illegally contributed to his campaign in 2010 is now listed as a personal asset. It raises more questions, he said.
Fergus Cullen, a former state GOP chairman who was one of the first people to report on the FEC complaint, said the FEC determined that the money was not Guinta’s personal funds, and that he had to repay his parents’ accounts.
“He’s transferred the money into an account he controls. The money comes from his parents,” he said.
Cullen has filed a different FEC complaint based on Guinta paying back $81,500 of the original $355,000 loan to himself. That repayment was well before the FEC settlement agreement in 2015. Because Guinta repaid the $355,000 in January of this year, Cullen argues he’s “double-dipping,” paying himself — or his “family fund,” an extra $81,500.
Guinta’s campaign did not respond to questions about whether listing the “family fund” as a personal asset is at odds with the FEC finding, whether any of this “asset” would be used to fund his 2016 re-election bid, or whether he will agree to release his tax returns.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
TWO NEW Hampshire politicians have had their email addresses hacked. U.S. Rep. Annie Kuster, D-NH, may have had some personal information compromised in connection with a breach of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. This appears unrelated to the hack of the Democratic National Committee. Meanwhile, someone hacked the personal email account of New Hampshire Senate Minority Leader Jeff Woodburn, D-Dalton. In an email blast, the culprit purporting to be Woodburn asks for a loan of $9,000 to help pay for an operation on a tumor for his wife. Woodburn, in a phone interview from Concord Wednesday, said the hack was reported late Tuesday night. “No malicious partisanship” was at play, he joked.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE NEW Hampshire Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign plan to open another four offices this week, which will bring their number of coordinated campaign offices to 14. Gov. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat running for U.S. Senate, will open an office in Claremont on Thursday, and an office in Dover on Saturday. U.S. Rep. Ann McLane Kuster, D-NH, will be on hand to open a Milford office Saturday. U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., will speak at the opening of a Keene office Saturday afternoon, and participate in a canvassing event in Peterborough that day, also.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
QUICK TAKES:
• U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-NH, is scheduled to speak to the Concord Republican City Committee’s “Politics & Pies” event tonight at 6:15 p.m. at the Snow Shoe Club in Concord.
• Gov. Maggie Hassan, D-Newfields, will steer her U.S. Senate campaign to Lebanon today for a stop at Hypertherm to talk about economic innovation.
• The state chapter of the American Federation of Teachers endorsed former U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH, on Wednesday. In the endorsement, AFT-NH President Doug Ley said Shea-Porter “understands that negative politics like we have seen in Washington and right here in our state is not the NH way.”
• Jim Beard of Lempster named Betty Maiola of Newport the chair of his campaign for state Senate District 8, and announced 27 supporters, including Rep. Daniel Donovan of Deering, Rep. Jim Grenier of Lempster, Joe Torro of Bradford, Rep. Skip Rollins of Newport. Beard has a GOP primary with Ruth Ward of Stoddard. The winner faces Democrat John Garvey of New London.
• Congressman Guinta on Wednesday touted the “Numbers USA” organization labeling him a “True Reformer” when it comes to immigration reform and strengthening border security.
• Rich Ashooh, a Republican running for the 1st Congressional District, announced endorsements from 20 business people and local leaders, including Ed Mencis from Sandown, Christopher R. Messier and former state Rep. Irene Messier from Manchester, Belknap county Commissioner Hunter Taylor, and GOP activists Carl and Helen DePrima of Bedford.
• Manchester Mayor and GOP gubernatorial hopeful Ted Gatsas has a statewide campaign mailer going out Thursday and Friday. The takeaway line: “You can spend your money better than government.”
• Former gubernatorial hopeful Jackie Cilley, a two-term state representative from Barrington, endorsed Mark Connolly on Wednesday for the Democratic nomination for governor.
Dan Tuohy covers politics and government for the Union Leader and Sunday News. Email news and information to dtuohy@unionleader.com. Follow on Twitter: @tuohy.
Reader's comment:
MARY LUSSIER said on August 18, 2016:
Let me get this straight: the FEC found Guinta took an illegal contribution from his parents, fined him, and told him to pay them back. So he pays the money to a “family pot” that he can use?! He paid himself!
-----
"Another bank account? Guinta does it again"
NH Union Leader, Editorial, August 19, 2016
If only Frank Guinta could invoke his personal financial magic on behalf of U.S. taxpayers.
Poof, he could make $20 trillion materialize out of thin air, and pay off the national debt.
As the Union Leader’s Dan Tuohy reported in Thursday’s Granite Status, Guinta is claiming ownership of $355,000 that his campaign was supposed to repay to his parents. History is repeating itself as farce.
Guinta got caught using his parents’ money to win a seat in Congress in 2010. He lied about it for five years, and finally agreed last year to repay the money, and to stop treating the “Guinta Family Fund” as his own.
Guinta says he put the money into an account that he shares with his parents. That’s the same “family pot” defense the FEC already rejected. Guinta won’t say if he plans to use that money to fund his reelection campaign.
The agreement Guinta signed allows the FEC to institute a civil action in U.S. District Court if it’s violated. By continuing to claim ownership of money that isn’t his, Guinta has violated that agreement. Paying back the illegal loan to a joint account was a weak attempt to evade campaign finance laws.
His lies are so transparent, and shameless, that Guinta can best be described as Clintonian. We have lost the ability to be shocked by Guinta’s dishonesty.
Guinta used illegal contributions to first get elected to Congress. We expect him to try to recycle that money to salvage his congressional career.
-----
"GOP critic of Guinta has new complaint"
By Kevin Landrigan, New Hampshire Union Leader, August 22, 2016
MANCHESTER — A frequent, Republican critic of Congressman Frank Guinta, R-N.H., has asked the Federal Elections Commission to take immediate action to block the two-term incumbent from using a new, six-figure account to benefit his reelection.
Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the Republican State Committee, amended an earlier FEC complaint with information about this new account first reported in the New Hampshire Union Leader’s Granite Status column last week.
On his most recent personal financial disclosure form, Guinta listed this new account valued at between $250,000 and $500,000.
In May 2014, the FEC and Guinta reached a settlement that required the congressman to return $355,000 in 2010 campaign loans to his parents.
To this day, Guinta maintains that money was in his control.
The FEC disagreed and ruled it was not his personal funds but in the control of his parents who had illegally given him too much.
Even family members must comply with federal donation laws that limit any individual giving $2,700 apiece for the primary and general election campaigns of those seeking federal office.
Cullen wrote the FEC Friday that this new account represents the same family assets that Guinta has no right to use for this race.
“It is plainly not the Commission’s intent for Guinta to keep the money personally or to recycle the illegal, excessive contribution he received from his parents back into his personal campaign committee a second time,” Cullen wrote in his amended complaint.
“Indeed, Guinta is thumbing his nose at the Commission.”
In his request, Cullen alludes to the fact it took four years for the commission to answer the original complaint against Guinta and urged that history not repeat itself.
“Given Guinta’s flagrant money laundering and disregard for the substance of the conciliation agreement, I ask the Commission to consider injunctive relief,” Cullen wrote.
Guinta Campaign Manager Jay Ruais said the incumbent is in full compliance with the FEC settlement and this new asset does not in any way violate that pact.
“We can’t comment on a complaint that hasn’t been received or reviewed. Granite Staters recognize this for the sad, political ploy that it is,” Ruais said. “Every cycle hundreds of these complaints are filed with no basis beyond getting a story written with a negative headline. The campaign is in full compliance with the FEC and the Congressman remains focused on actual issues of importance to New Hampshire.”
Guinta faces a tough primary challenge from Bedford businessman Rich Ashooh. If Guinta survives the Sept. 8 primary, he will have a fourth match with former Democratic Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter of Rochester.
Cullen charged Guinta with trying to disguise his personal finances so voters have little knowledge about what’s taken place until it’s too late to do anything about it.
Guinta asked for and received a 90-day extension on his 2015 financial disclosure which meant these latest details did not come out until less than a month before the primary.
And Cullen said Guinta could plow some of that personal money into this race and not have to reveal it until after primary ballots are cast.
“So Guinta is listing the money he was meant to refund as a personal asset he controls. As such, he could transfer this money back to his campaign account at any time,” Cullen warned.
“He may be planning to do so. He may have already done so.”
Derry Republican Chris Wolfe filed the original complaint against Guinta, which led to the FEC settlement the congressman reached last year.
Asked about the new account showing up on Guinta’s filing, Wolfe said it raises more questions.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Readers' Comments:
Ed Holdgate said:
Fergus Cullen is a house painter with zero credibility, considering his less than milquetoast short stint as NHGOP Chair. He merely craves attention, and taking cheap shots at Frank Guinta (most likely at the behest of the GOP Establishmentarians in their dark smoke filled rooms) shows the GOP Establishment has no courage and no honor -- just loathing for any candidate or incumbent who does not tow the GOP Establishment line. Therefore, US Rep. Frank Guinta is obviously a New GOP outsider in an age when we GOP peasants-with-pitchforks WANT Outsiders. By virtue of his good-to-great consistent votes that go all the way back to his days in Concord, hard work for constituents, and a friendly, approachable, demeanor, I'm voting for the Great-but-not-perfect Frank Guinta.
Michael Pucci said:
hah hah, "Great-but-not-perfect", will you apply that to Hillary Clinton? Or have the crimes she has never been charged with let you vote for a blowhard who's incapable of serving as President and won't allow his tax returns to be released because what he says about his "wealth" is a lie. A lie just like Joe McQuaid made clear about honest Frank. "Frank Guinta is a **** liar" sayeth Joe McQuaid.
Spike said:
Imagine if Fergus and even Pretty Kelly EVER had such harsh words or dogged pursuit of their supposed adversaries in the Democratic Party. With such friends, Republicans don't need enemies.
John King:
Frank Guinta Endorses Donald Trump, who is a Racist and a bigot. If you vote and endorse a racist and a bigot, you are a racist and a bigot. The above money Laundering is another breach of integrity, put it on the list.
Spike said:
Michael Pucci--I concede that Mr. Trump is a "blowhard." But Hillary is a mobster, with a quarter-century record of manufacturing or stealing facts on others, illegally concealing facts on herself, obstructing justice, ruining individuals (whether Bill raped them or whether she simply wants to give their jobs to cronies), and lying as a first resort. All right, she has never been indicted (as Bill trysts with the Attorney General, supposedly to compare baby pictures). But how is it that everyone, including the once-wise Gordon Humphrey, are equating being a blowhard with being a crook? Equating not wanting to release personal records to those on a fishing expedition, with taking the entire Department of State off the books? Are we so unsure of what we believe that giving offense is as bad as stealing FBI files--if enough BlackLivesMatter sockpuppets chant that it is?
Spike said:
PS to Michael Pucci--Perhaps you are the person to list for us three Hillary "accomplishments." Please go beyond good intentions and "opening lines of communication."
Ronald Held said:
Translation of the first post: Frank may be a crook, but he's MY crook. Relax, Ed, there will still be plenty of "outsiders" looking in after Nov. 8th
Spike said:
John King--Can you be bothered specifying anything that Mr. Trump has ever said that suggests that he thinks the white race is inherently superior? Or does your assertion rely on your belief that the only reason to oppose a government hackarama that CLAIMS to help black people, is hatred of black people?
Mike Houst said:
You know, extremists call people who discriminate for valid reasons racists and bigots. I don't have a problem with people of darker skin complexion than my own. I do have a problem with people who riot, beat up people, or burn down homes and businesses, of those who never did anything to them. I don't have a problem with Hispanic folks who come to this country legally and navigate the queue to citizenship. I do have a problem with people who steal into this country in the night, and take jobs and housing away from my children.
Steven Miller:
The UL saga continues. 4 articles and editorials in the last week bashing Frank. Guess what: Frank has done nothing illegal. The real motives are to make Frank lose the Sept 13th Primary by calling into question how his campaign is financed. I don't think he needs the $ in the joint account to defeat Ashooh. His record this term has been superb representing the 1st CD. Give us all a break and stick to the issues.
James McCann said:
Mike Houst- Excellent response Mike. The "open borders" crowd and the "globalists" mock those of us who wish the government would do the job they took an oath to do and control who comes into this country. That's not racist. That's the law. The democrats want another amnesty so they can pander to this group much like they pander to blacks. How has that worked out for them? That's why the democrats dropped the English language requirement from their party platform. Get more people into the country who will remain poor and live off the government (taxpayers) so they can be controlled. Guinta is the only representative from NH who is for border security. Kelly Ayotte pays lip service to the issue but has done nothing. She's another McCain, Graham who act conservative once every six years and then goes back to being a RINO as soon as the election is over.
Charles Triglianos said:
Is it so hard to just obey the rules? Dem or Rep, stop breaking the law!!
Jim Peschke said:
FALSE PREMISE ALERT!! John King writes "If you vote (for) and endorse a racist and a bigot, then you are a racist and a bigot". Factually incorrect. Please look these words up in a dictionary and come back later. Since you clearly don't know what these words mean, your comment about Trump and Guinta is worthless.
-----
Grant Bosse: "Still no answers from Frank Guinta"
By Grant Bosse, Op-Ed, New Hampshire Union Leader, August 30, 2016
I wasn't expecting any new answers from Frank Guinta yesterday. But I was looking forward to him some questions in person.
The Manchester Republican was scheduled to take part in our Voters First candidate interview series on Monday morning. But his campaign manager sent us an email Sunday night cancelling Guinta’s interview. Whether he got cold feet at the last minute, or never intended to follow through on his promise, is irrelevant.
We certainly had plenty of questions for him. How would he prevent Social Security and Medicare from going bankrupt, or bankrupting the rest of the federal government? Why did he reverse years of support for free trade agreements with his recent opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership? How can Congress reassert the checks and balances built into our constitutional republic in the face of two Presidential candidates who place so few limits on their own authority?
And yes, we still have a lot of unanswered questions about Guinta’s campaign finances.
Back in 2010, Guinta amended the personal financial disclosure form required of all federal candidates. A large bank account suddenly appeared that hadn’t been there before, and Guinta tapped that account for $355,000 in loans to fund his Congressional campaign. He edged out Sean Mahoney and Rich Ashooh for the Republican nomination, and went on to beat Carol Shea-Porter in November.
The questions about his mysterious bank account didn’t go away. The went into the black hole of the Federal Election Commission.
Guinta and Shea-Porter swapped the seat back and forth in 2012 and 2014. Last year, Guinta reached a settlement with the FEC, supposedly ending the five-year investigation. It turns out that money wasn’t Guinta’s at all. It belonged to his parents. Guinta claimed, and continues to claim, that the money comes from the Guinta Family Fund, and always belonged to him. The FEC found no evidence to support this claim, and forced Guinta to pay the loan back to his parents.
But Guinta didn’t do that. He paid back the Guinta Family Fund, alright, but the dirty money showed up again on his personal financial disclosure.
Guinta has responded to this never-ending scandal by reading from the Clinton crisis management playbook.
1- Deny.
2- Delay.
3- Blame the media.
4- Say it’s old news.
5- Rinse and repeat.
This week, he invoked Clinton’s current strategy; bury your head in the sand and hope voters are too worn down by scandal fatigue to care anymore.
I know I’m certainly sick of talking about Guinta’s bank accounts. My brother worked for Guinta’s campaign in 2010, and he had to deal with it every day. I would very much like for this story to end, but Guinta refuses to give a straight answer, or even acknowledge that he took an illegal campaign contribution from his parents.
In cancelling the interview, Guinta campaign manager Jay Ruais blamed the Union Leader. Ruais said that our “highly personal and even vulgar editorials toward him and his family” meant that Guinta would not “receive a fair look at his record serving Granite Staters from this newspaper.” Why did it take Guinta until Sunday night to realize we were so unfair? We called for his resignation more than a year ago.
Guinta has only himself to blame. Having dragged his parents into a campaign finance scandal, he is now hiding behind them to avoid media scrutiny. We never questioned his family. We questioned his integrity.
We didn’t force him to take an illegal loan, or lie about where it came from.
We didn’t make him pay himself back, instead of his parents.
We didn’t lie about the whole thing for six years, and counting.
We’ll keep asking questions until Guinta gives us a straight answer. Given the way he’s going, I expect his next response to be, “At this point, what difference does it make.”
Grant Bosse is editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader and Sunday News.
Reader's Comment:
SPIKE said:
Indeed, Rep. Guinta is stonewalling just like Hillary Clinton at her "best." This newspaper's leftie readers applaud the resulting GOP disarray (for example, underneath your editorial endorsing Mr. Ashooh, who is a quantum leap to the muddy Rudmanoid left, though those posters will never vote for him in November anyway). On Hillary, they draw the wagons in a circle and demand proof beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Scandal becomes a tool to drive wedges between willing Republicans, but something from which to protect even-guiltier Democrats.
-----
"Amid new finance complaints, Guinta cancels Union Leader interview"
By Union Leader staff, August 29, 2016
Amid new calls from Republicans for an investigation into his finances, Rep. Frank Guinta, R-Manchester, canceled a long-planned interview with editors and reporters from the New Hampshire Union Leader.
An aide for Guinta emailed the newspaper late Sunday night to “respectfully decline the invitation” for an interview Monday morning. In the weeks since Guinta’s campaign confirmed they would take part in the interview, the New Hampshire Union Leader has reported several stories raising new questions about his campaign finances.
On Aug. 17, political reporter Dan Tuohy broke a story detailing how hundreds of thousands of dollars appeared as a personal asset on Guinta’s campaign finance report. On his most recent personal financial disclosure form, Guinta listed a new account at Bank of America valued at between $250,000 and $500,000. The report seemed to be at odds with a Federal Election Commission ruling that found Guinta illegally took $355,000 which was not in his control.
The following week, former NHGOP chairman Fergus Cullen asked the FEC to take immediate action to prevent the two-term incumbent from using the new six-figure account ahead of his primary with challenger Rich Ashooh, R-Bedford.
To this day, Guinta maintains that money was in his control, despite the FEC ruling.
Guinta is one of only two candidates in a contested federal or statewide election on either side of the aisle who will not take part in the Union Leader’s “Voters First” series of interviews. The other is Democratic gubernatorial candidate Colin Van Ostern.
“The Congressman has always welcomed a healthy debate of ideas,” wrote Guinta’s aide, Jay Ruais. “Disagreement is a natural and healthy part of a democracy; it is why he has always held town halls and public forums. At this time though, it is clear that the Congressman cannot receive a fair look at his record serving Granite Staters from this newspaper.”
Union Leader Publisher Joseph W. McQuaid rebuked those claims.
“Guinta’s last-minute backing out of this interview is his decision, of course; but his stated objections are laughable,” McQuaid said. “As with the many other candidate interviews we have done as part of the Voters First series, his would be completely on-the-record and recorded. He would be asked a wide range of questions and he would be free to answer them or not as he pleased. Using our editorial opinion as an excuse for dodging those questions is absurd.”
Ruais said Guinta “welcomes the scrutiny that comes with being a public servant,” pointing to three candidate forums held in Rockingham County, another forum in Bedford and a radio debate. Ruais also promised Guinta would participate in more debates, though was not specific about which ones.
-----
“Dems file new FEC complaint against Guinta”
By Dan Tuohy, New Hampshire Union Leader, September 27, 2016
The New Hampshire Democratic Party has filed another complaint against U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta, R-NH, in connection with his campaign finances and a Federal Election Commission settlement from 2015.
The Democrats allege that Guinta violated the terms of the FEC conciliation agreement that he refund $355,000 in illegal, excessive loans from his parents that were critical to his 2010 campaign. FEC contribution limits per person, even for family members, was $2,400 during that election cycle.
Guinta claimed that he had an "equitable interest" in the money, and maintains it is his, despite the FEC's finding to the contrary. At issue, as first reported by the New Hampshire Union Leader, is the fact that Guinta reported the $355,000 on his personal assets in the financial disclosure form filed with the U.S. House of Representatives last month.
In its 2015 finding, the FEC fined Guinta $15,000 and ordered him to refund the $355,000 to the account, or accounts, in his parents name. He paid the fine and cut a lump sum check of $355,000 to the "Guinta Family Fund" back in January of this year.
Guinta's campaign said the Democratic Party was engaging in "partisan, political games" with its complaint and that the congressman remains in full compliance with the FEC.
"The state Democrat Party is desperately reaching for any lifetime to protect Shea-Porter from her empty record and Shawn O’Connor’s Bernie Sanders-inspired campaign against the party,” Guinta’s campaign responded. “While Shea-Porter and her Concord cronies are recycling old news to avoid a response, Granite Staters are still waiting for an answer to our question: Will Shea-Porter welcome O’Connor and all candidates to the debate stage? Or will she and the Democrat party continue to disenfranchise Bernie supporters who preferred a different nominee?"
The Democrats' complaint is similar to one filed earlier this year by former state GOP chairman Fergus Cullen.
Guinta, a two-term congressman and former Manchester mayor, won his party primary on Sept. 13. He held off a strong challenge from Bedford Republican Rich Ashooh, who raised Guinta's finance scandal often on the campaign trail.
During a GOP breakfast the day after the state primary, Guinta repeated that the FEC case was settled. "The past is the past," he said at the time.
Ray Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party, is requesting the FEC to open an investigation into what the complaint calls "apparent violations of federal laws prohibiting excessive contributions to a political committee and the use of campaign funds for the personal benefit of the candidate."
Buckley discussed the complaint Tuesday, with former party chairwoman Kathy Sullivan, and former U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, D-NH.
"These campaign funds were paid by his campaign for Frank Guinta's personal use and that's a clear violation of the law," Sullivan said. "Not only has Frank Guinta thumbed his nose at the FEC just a year after settling with them, he has broken the law again. This has become a habit with Frank Guinta."
In his complaint, Cullen first argued that Guinta had engaged in "double dipping" because Guinta previously repaid $81,500 of the original $355,000 in loans, before the $355,000 check was sent to the "family fund" last winter. Guinta spokesman Jay Ruais said in April that the $81,500 would be addressed in the July quarterly report, which did show $81,500 loaned to his campaign committee.
FEC records show Guinta did not pay income taxes or interest and dividends on the funding in question.
Guinta faces former U.S. Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, a Democrat from Rochester, for a fourth general election. Independents Shawn O'Connor and Brendan Kelly, along with Libertarian Robert Lombardo, are also on the Nov. 8 ballot. Shea-Porter, like Ashooh before her, is making it a campaign issue. In one of her first ads, she linked to a televised Granite State Debate clip in which Guinta claimed two years ago that the FEC had exonerated him.
The Buckley complaint alleges Guinta has "made a mockery of the FEC General Counsel's five-year investigation and has brazenly violated the terms of the 2015 conciliation agreement."
"The Guinta campaign either directly gave $355,000 to Mr. Guinta for his personal use or laundered it to him by 'refunding' the money to his parents who then transferred it to Mr. Guinta or who put the money into a bank account that Mr. Guinta could personally access," the three-page complaint reads. "However the circumvention of the Conciliation Agreement was orchestrated, it puts Mr. Guinta in the position of once again, now in his 2016 campaign, of taking yet another unlawful excessively large contribution from his parents to his political committee."
Ruais, the Guinta spokesman, who is his chief of staff, told the Associated Press last month that Guinta did not plan to use any of the $355,000 for his primary campaign. He declined to answer further questions raised by the Union Leader about the money and the FEC case.
Hodes said that, however the fund is viewed, it appears to be that the campaign moved $355,000 to a Guinta-controlled account for his own use. "However that move happened, that's what happened," Hodes said. "Campaign funds converted to personal use by Guinta. It violates the terms of his conciliation agreement. It's unethical and it's dishonest."
-----
"Guinta's finances raised in 1st CD debate"
By Dan Tuohy, New Hampshire Union Leader, October 24, 2016
U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta and Democrat Carol Shea-Porter traded barbs in a debate Monday night, while independent Shawn O’Connor pitched himself as a viable third option.
The three argued over ethics at the onset of the 1st Congressional District debate aired on NH1.
Shea-Porter, a former congresswoman, accused Guinta of lying about the nature of campaign finance violations dating back to his first campaign in 2010.
“The reality is, six years ago, I apologized for a mistake that I made,” Guinta, a two-term Republican and former Manchester mayor, said.
The Federal Election Commission concluded in 2015 that Guinta broke finance law by accepting an illegal, excessive contribution of $355,000 from his parents’ account. He was fined $15,000 and ordered to refund the amount to his family fund, which he has done. He maintains that the money was his.
O’Connor, calling himself “a new, fresh voice,” criticized Shea-Porter for taking more than $2 million from political action committees and donations from lobbyists.
Guinta is facing Shea-Porter for a fourth general election. He defeated her in 2010, lost to her in 2012, and then won the seat again in 2014.
O’Connor, a businessman from Bedford, waged a bid for the Democratic Party nomination before splitting with the party in June. He claimed party leaders worked against his candidacy, preferring instead Shea-Porter. He said he is not running as a spoiler candidate.
“I feel like I’m at a Democratic primary debate,” Guinta said at one point Monday night.
Guinta cast the Affordable Care Act as a defining issue in the race, citing a government report Monday that average premiums will skyrocket by double digits in 2017. Shea-Porter voted for Obamacare.
Jennifer Horn, chair of the New Hampshire Republican Party, said that, “Obamacare was sold on a lie and Granite Staters must not forget that Carol Shea-Porter cast her vote for this full-fledged trainwreck.”
The three candidates highlighted the heroin epidemic as a key concern; each cited opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. Shea-Porter and O’Connor said they support increasing the minimum wage.
When Guinta and O’Connor said they support term limits, Shea-Porter disagreed.
“We should leave it up to voters,” she said.
O’Connor and Shea-Porter called for more comprehensive gun control measures, while Guinta said the U.S. should first focus on enforcing the laws that are on the books.
O’Connor and Shea-Porter said climate change is an urgent issue, and one that is caused by human activities.
Guinta questioned climate change, noting that not every scientist agrees it is man-made.
The three participate in the Granite State Debates, co-sponsored by the New Hampshire Union Leader and WMUR, for the final 1st District debate on Nov. 3 at 7 p.m.
dtuohy@unionleader.com
-----
