In addition, the 2001 City Council campaign of Letitia James (the “James campaign”) was alleged to have exceeded the primary election expenditure limit.  However, the James campaign had already received its maximum amount of public funds for the primary election, so no post-election public funds payment for the primary election was potentially outstanding. Ms. James lost the Democratic party primary, but continued to the general election as the Working Families Party candidate. Based on the suspicion that the James campaign had exceeded the primary election expenditure limit, the Board declined to authorize a pre-election public funds payment for Ms. James’s general election campaign, and Ms. James proceeded without public funds in her unsuccessful general election campaign. Following its post-election audit of the James campaign, the Board determined that the James campaign had exceeded the 2001 primary election expenditure limit by $14,372, and assessed a $28,744 penalty for this violation. The James campaign submitted a Board Rule 4 5-02(a) petition in October 2003 claiming that it was owed a public matching funds payment of $73,762 for the 2001 general election, and filed an Article 78 petition challenging both the penalty determination and the Board’s denial of public funds. The court ruled in the Board’s favor, finding that “the petition is in all respects denied.” What is questionable and even more interesting is that despite the court’s ruling, the Board ultimately decided to pay the James campaign public funds in July 2004 for the 2001 general election despite its violation of the primary election expenditure limit. The decision was based on two factors: (1) the James campaign fully paid the penalties assessed against the campaign; and (2) the James campaign did not have sufficient notice that the consequence of a primary election expenditure limit violation would be that the campaign was ineligible to receive public funds for the general election.

Now if she did not have the money to pay in the first place, where did she get the MONEY/FUNDS to pay off the assessed $28,744 penalty for this violation?  Why did the board supercede the ruling of the court? 

 

Moreover, she has been fined for building violations and claimed that the problem is with the contractor, Z. Abedin and not her, whom by the way still has not been officially identified by the Buildings Department.  She was hit with a summons and a $2,000 fine in December 2008 which is still not paid. Council Member James as the owner of the property should take responsibility.  Council Member James also claims that her prior tenant issues was not due to her. Once again, Council Member James claimed that she did not know that she received $5,500 in 2003 from people associated with Forest City Ratner even though she called Bruce Bender (VP at Forest City Ratner) and asked for money.  It has been rumored for years that she also received other monies ($15K plus) from Forest City Ratner to help pay off a huge fine.  I ask the question once more, if she did not have the money to pay in the first place, where did she get the MONEY/FUNDS to pay off the assessed $28,744 penalty for this violation?  Here we go again, she now claims that she is only waiting on her tax refund to pay her outstanding tax bill in the amount of $9,837.46.  Unfortunately, she seems to be the type who does not own up to responsibility and stretches the truth most of the time. She is quick with making excuses.