Perriello Behind the Clark Mailers in VA-05??
By Shaun Kenney | Saturday, October 30th, 2010 | PoliticsUPDATE: The Roanoke Times has this example… as speculation on the “whodunit?” continues to mount.
So the same union, same bulk permit number, and the same vendor that prints Perriello’s taxpayer-funded franking mail is doing anonymous mailers into Virginia’s 5th District?
As broken by Bearing Drift, it appears as if the same union who printed Perriello’s $300,000 in franking mail is the same union who printed Jeff Clark’s mail. Now it appears as if Perriello has made a foolish, bush-league mistake, with all the arrows pointing towards the beneficiary of Perriello’s $300,000+ in taxpayer-funded franking mailings.
Talk about pay for play… if Perriello confirms or refuses to deny, these are insider tricks at their worse, and a major black eye that could very well cost Perriello the election.
Robert Hurt for Congress has more:
The Hurt campaign is calling on Congressman Perriello to immediately admit to and come clean about his role in sending these anonymous mail pieces. These kinds of political mail pieces without a disclaimer are in direct violation of FEC law.
The Facts:
Congressman Perriello uses a union shop to print his franked mail. Note the union bug in the corner of page two on the attached piece. It is identified as shop No. 14. The websites attached demonstrate that Union Shop No. 14 is MV Print: 3229 Hubbard Road Landover, Maryland 20785.
A number of anonymous mailers have been showing up in the 5th District. While they bear no disclaimer, they do show bulk permit number 2856 from the Merrifield, VA Post Office. It has been confirmed that MV Print is bulk permit number 2856.
Why is a mail shop that does Congressman Perriello’s official mail pieces for his Congressional office, paid for at taxpayer expense, doing anonymous mail that would benefit Congressman Perriello in the General Election? It seems to be a rather strong coincidence.
To date, no one has really stood up and claimed these mailers as their own, even thought The Hill has already taken Perriello to the woodshed on previous Jeff Clark mailings.
Worse still, each one mailed is an independent Federal Election Commission violation.
In other words, it’s cheating, and at the last minute.
UPDATE x2: Just got off the phone with Jessica Barba with the Perriello campaign.
She noted that it is somewhat interesting that Robert Hurt opposes the DISCLOSE Act, which would clear this instance of confusion up rather nicely. Nonetheless, Ms. Barba noted there are literally two or three Washington D.C. area mailshops that are unionized, and there are a multitude of groups that use them — not just Perriello.
I asked point blank: if I asked Tom Perriello, would he deny authorizing these mailings? Further would he confirm that he has no idea who is behind them?
Perriello’s campaign is reinforcing that Tom is not behind the mailings, nor he does not know who is behind them.
It’s pretty clear talking to Ms. Barba that the campaign feels this is (a) misinformation being spread by the Hurt campaign, and (b) much ado about nothing. I asked if there would be a press statement from the Perriello campaign, and so far they do not intend to dignify this with an official response.
DEVELOPING…
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
Comments
47 Responses to "Perriello Behind the Clark Mailers in VA-05??"
Shaun, do you have the entire mailers scanned? The Hurt campaign has only scanned part of the mailers. I’d like to see the entire mailers to determine for myself if they don’t disclose who sent them.
This is just incredibly stupid–and I would say the same if a Republican candidate did this. Did he not think this could be traced back to his campaign? Too clever by half, congressman.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Shaun Kenney, Shaun Kenney and Bearing Drift, Samuel Gilleran. Samuel Gilleran said: RT @bearingdrift: Web: Perriello Behind the Clark Mailers in VA-05?? http://bit.ly/b8GS4f [...]
Hey Shaun, can you fix the Roanoke Times upload? Mr. Highsmith might not want his address posted online. You’re not Andy Sere, are you?
No NAS — I’m you:
NAS, I can verify: my parents received three and there was absolutely no disclaimer anywhere on any of them. The bulk mail permit was the only official stamp present. I even examined one for about five minutes and never found a disclaimer.
Love you Shaun!
Jason, thank you for the verification. This is very interesting. It’s obvious that the DCCC is sending out mailers. I’ve also seen mailers from the DPVA also. I assume that a mailer without a disclaimer is illegal?
@NAS — not only is it an FEC violation, I believe it is a violation per piece. When you have money getting tossed around in the hundreds of thousands, this should be drawing more than the Cap Hill press pool.
(been waiting to use that parody, too…)
Shaun, who is the violation against? The mail firm? The person paying for it? The group that authorized it? I understand that campaigns pay groups with a bulk rate discount to send out their mailers. So if Perriello pays the DPVA to send out the mailer and it doesn’t have an authorization, is that a violation against Perriello or the DPVA?
Shaun, I don’t think this isn’t quite as interesting as you suspect it is.
“MV Printing” is, in fact, Mount Vernon Printing, an enormous, nationwide printer that’s a subsidiary of Consolidated Graphics. We’re talking about one of the biggest printers and mailing houses in the nation. The fact that the mailing came from Mount Vernon and Perriello uses Mount Vernon is a bit like saying that both of them buy stuff from Lowe’s; it tells you very little. Other Mount Vernon customers include Steny Hoyer, the DCCC, the Fairfax County Democratic Committee, and the Libertarian National Committee. (Democrats, famously, tend not to make media buys directly, but instead go through consultants. My understanding is that Mount Vernon prints a lot of Democrats’ stuff, but there’s no way to tell based on disclosures, because those checks are all written to the consultants who, in turn, write checks to Mount Vernon.) A few minutes reading though some relevant Google results will reveal lots of Democratic congressional candidates who have had printing done by Mount Vernon.
Is it theoretically possible that Perriello is behind these? I suppose so. But the evidence that you’ve provided here doesn’t tell us that. Based on the evidence at hand, there’s no more reason to suspect Perriello than the DCCC or, indeed, the Libertarian Party.
FYI: A UNION didn’t print the mailer as small business did. Why would you blame a UNION when a small business did the job? You are falsly blaming a union when they did not print anything.
I thought you guys are pro business? I guess you are anti-union, anti-small business and can’t read. It took me 30 seconds to read the BS and lies in your blog. What is wrong with you all?
Then how do you explain the union bug on the mailer, William? Is this an elaborate plot by the Hurt campaign to make Perriello look worse than he already does?!
Do you all know how to read or investigate? Mount Vernon Printing is the name of the company that printed the mailer shown in the pdf link on this site. It wasn’t a UNION that did this job and Shuan Kenny is GUILTY of falsely spreading lies. He is either dumb or intentionally wrote the false blog report on this site. I don’t think he is dumb…
And accourding the the printer’s web site: The “union bug” can be applied to any paper at the request of the buyer. FYI: THE UNION hasn’t own the print shop since 1917. Try reading a little history about the small business that printed the mailers below:
Mount Vernon Printing originally started in 1917 as the in-house print shop for the International Association of Machinists. The union decided to sell the print shop to its manager, Jack Waldron. Jack named the company Mount Vernon Printing for its location at Mount Vernon Square in Washington, DC. After World War II, the business was run by Jack’s son, Mark Waldron and relocated to Alexandria, VA. In the 1980’s, John Carty and Pat Dooley became partners and began their efforts toward making Mount Vernon – now located in Landover, MD – a printing landmark in the Washington, D.C. area.
In 1998, Mount Vernon became a member of the Consolidated Graphics family of printers. Based out of Houston, TX, Consolidated Graphics (CGX) is the nation’s premier provider of printing solutions. With a network of 70 printing companies strategically located across 27 states, Canada, The Czech Republic and Japan, CGX offers an unmatched geographic footprint with extensive capabilities supported by an unparalleled level of convenience, efficiency and service. This allows Mount Vernon to combine the service and attention of a local company with the resources and purchasing power of a large national organization.
My real thoughts are: this race is very close and these people will do or try anything to get a win. Right or wrong do not matter to them.
Who did it and who is behind it? I don’t know. However we know for sure we can’t believe what Shaun Kenny puts out…
And he is a public official: Vice-Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors. I’m sure they are proud to have his record of false public blog comments reflecting on Fluvanna County residents honesty and integrity.
the person paying for the piece asks for the union bug so as not to offend the union. but this time, it seems that the union will look bad because they have their “bug” on a mailer with no disclaimer.
so would it not be those that finance these mailers that are in violation? or those for which the mailer intends to benefit?
good work Shaun.
I don’t think it’s fair to attack Shaun for this. He’s absolutely right to be suspicious of a mailer that lacks a disclaimer—something’s not right there. (That said, I’m not sure how Citizens United affects mailers. Wouldn’t a business be free to send out a mailer without identifying themselves, since they’re not regulated by the FEC?) You might disagree with his conclusion, but there’s no need to attack him personally.
Kelley, no, there’s no reason why the shop should be any trouble. They’re just printers and mailers—their job is to print and mail the thing that they’re being paid to print and mail. The only party who bears any liability here (if there is, indeed, any to be borne) is whatever organization or individual paid for and authorized this mailer. It’s no more the union’s fault than it’s Kinko’s fault if I photocopy 1,000 pro-Clark handbills on their photocopiers.
no, Waldo, you might have misunderstood my comment/query. I think the liability would run to either the one who financed this mail piece without the disclaimer or the one benefitting from the mail piece (but then you might have to prove knowledge).
and Waldo, the FEC laws are so crazy, but this mailer is a contribution. if it is a contribution by a mere individual, the mail piece can cost no more than $2,400. if it is a contribution by more than one person, it must have the organization listed.
please correct me if i am wrong.
Eric Holder will get right on it.
waldo, i’ve re-read this whole post. I think the problem is that there is NO disclaimer anywhere. there must be SOME disclaimer.
Waldo: Shaun blamed a “UNION” falsely. He wrote it. He published it. He intentionally spread incorrect information. You want me to excuse him? What about accountability, integrity and honesty as a GOP core value?
I know what I’m doing and I’ve not written one false comment on this issue. Shaun can’t make he same statement. You can gloss over and ignore reality but I don’t and will not.
mr bailey: the mailers have union bugs on them. that is what the unions want.
@Waldo –
Perhaps you’re right on precisely who should be suspect. There’s no question as to who benefits, though.
Not sure that Mount Vernon Printing’s size really exonerates whomever is doing the 11th hour shell game, though your point on Citizens United is granted.
Duh… ANYONE CAN REQUEST A UNION BUG ON THEIR PRINT JOB!!!!!
Shaun blamed a “UNION” falsely. He wrote it. He published it. He intentionally spread incorrect information.
“Intentionally”? How do you know Shaun’s intentions, William? I get stuff wrong all the time. Sometimes I realize it as soon as somebody tells me, sometimes I’m a little slow on the uptake, and sometimes it’s a matter on which intelligent minds may disagree. My default position is to give others the benefit the doubt, as I assume that they will give me. That’s basically been working out for me for 32 years now.
Waldo: Are trying to say Kenney “accidently” wrote, and published his blog article blaming “A Union?” Factually: Kenney wrote it. He published it. It is false and incorrect. Any dispute? Fact: Mount Vernon Printing was the business that printed these mailers and they ARE NOT A UNION.
Now if in your 32 years, you are used to being feed incorrect information and you believe it, then you Sir have a problem. I don’t know Kenney from the man in the moom but I clearly know when somebody is falsely spreading incorrect information and blaming someone(a union in this case) intentionally and unfairly.
Alrighty then. I can see that we’re done here.
So William, you’re only upset because “THE UNION” is being blamed? I’m guessing keeping a reliable vote for card check in that fifth district seat is pretty important to you? It really doesn’t matter that federal elections laws have been violated but someone or some group omitting the disclaimer, just please don’t mistakenly blame “THE UNION”.
This is hilarious for multiple reasons. 1. do you really think Perriello’s campaign would be dumb enough to use the same print shop they use to print their own mailers if they were going to blatantly commit an FEC violation? You can give them as little credit as you’d like but that seems far fetched. 2. If somebody else is printing them to help Perriello they certainly wouldn’t have collaborated with his campaign on the issue. These are pretty basic mailers. Perriello’s campaign has (very) plausible deniability. 3. Is this really the best the Hurt campaign can do after being thoroughly dominated in the news cycle for damn near 3 days? Nobody else is paying attention to this other than the political dorks (myself included) who read the VA political blogs.
Point is-as far as this election is concerned, this is a non-issue.
Union spending on the midterm elections is now about $91 million. After 11/02, the dismay of many union members with their “union bosses” should make a very interesting study. I have seen studies that perhaps over 60% of union members are very dismayed with the waste of their union dues.
I would refer those wishing to know who gets the charge for not using disclaimers to Virginia Beach Mayor Will Sessoms and fall guy/media guy, Dave Iwans.
In the next episode of “When RINOs Attack”, news stories emerged in the Hampton Roads media that there have been allegations made that someone bribed VB Democrats to run ads against Republican Bill DeSteph and put their name on it. Still an ongoing matter.
If you want to learn about political advertising mischeif, search our local paper/TV stations and take notes.
This incident of undisclosed mailers benefiting Clark will probably end in some sort of investigation and be further food for bloggers.
After the Tea Party calling for Clark to drop out, Cuccinelli making his statement, and now this………….Clark should just step aside and not be tainted by this or his likely poor showing.
let’s review: unions, according to Mr. Bailey, are to be held harmless. And, according to realclearwin, this could be a massive coincidence with Perriello’s mailshop being used.
ok, so that leaves us with this: Jeff Clark who has heretofore raised very little money, found in the 11th hour enough cash to mail these 3 pieces without a disclaimer.
and I agree that this issue won’t reach the eyes/ears/minds of the voters before Tuesday.
but this is blatant cheating or incompetence. so somebody should step up & say “wow, we screwed up & I fired my press or strategy person.” will that person be Jeff Clark, Perriello or someone with DCCC or DPVA?
It wouldn’t be a “massive coincidence” it would be a really simple one. That’s o.k. though, you can keep trying to make it seem like a conspiracy
.
The print shop prints what it is paid to print. Simple as that. As for somebody getting fired, find out who did it and then determine that they have done something wrong, then ask for somebody to step down.
As a conservative it really bothers me when we chase after stories like this that don’t amount to much of anything.
There is no disclaimer, but in searching for one, I spotted a curious error in the footnotes of all three anonymous mailers: where the legitimate mailers correctly cite The Daily Progress, the mystery mailers, in supporting the same claim about Hurt’s record, refer to the next day’s edition of the (nonexistent, as far as I am aware) Charlottesville Daily Progressive. Weird.
I was quick to join the finger pointing at the Perriello camp – and whoever produced these things is undoubtedly a supporter – but (Unless I’m missing something? An inside joke?) it doesn’t look like the work of someone local.
Jeff Clark probably had nothing to do with it. I just think at this point, any percentage he does get will be tainted and not be useful later. That and the whole thing may turn off what support he does have. I think he should drop out regardless of my feelings for Hurt’s past record of being less than fiscally conservative. My opinion.
Jeff Clark wishes he had that kind of money. To me it looks like somebody wanting Perrillo to win did it. Just a matter of following up with an investigation after we are all done speculating.
If there was a last minute contribution to Jeff Clark, there would be a contribution report eventually and Clark would have happily put his name on the mailer.
If I had to guess, I would say this will fall on a Democrat or a hired gun.
in little Lunenburg County, we wanted to advertise that our GOP committee was hosting meet & greet for RH. that newspaper ad had to be double checked by RPV that we were putting proper disclaimer etc.(so not to get RH campaign in trouble). Wedding invitations don’t receive this degree of scrutiny, even from the mother of the bride!
so for a high priced mailer that will be seen by everybody in the 5th to not have proper FEC disclaimer, seems to be egregious oversight by somebody.
.
Isn’t this the in the series of mailers that the DCCC already admitted to sending out?
That would seem to settle that, don’t you think, Shaun?
if you are right Waldo, then the issue becomes: can you “disclaim” after the mailers went out?
interesting question.
but won’t impact Tuesday.
That being the case, you find the authorizing signature and prosecute the individual. After that, the RPV can use that conviction to point to dirty illegal tactics. Dave Iwans was prosecuted when the Sessoms campaign distributed fliers without a disclaimer. (Sessoms claimed to have no knowledge).
I don’t know who is responcible for these mailers and I don’t support either candidate as I do not live in that district. What I do oppose is Kenney’s using the word “Union” to add significance to his article. He could have simply written it claiming he didn’t know who did it and throw out some guesses. Instead the he threw in the “Union” word to inflame you all and degrade the labor forces image. Not acceptable to me.
I am a union member and I am frankly tired of the GOP attacks on working men and women. Many of us are republican as well as Independent voters. You can play to the GOP base all day long but if you want to win an election, you need more help. So cut the false and needless union bashing and stick to the known facts.
A Union was falsely blamed by Shaun Kenney and if he had any honesty and integrity at all, he’d simple say he made a mistake and move on.
@Waldo –
It appears to be in the same theme of what the DCCC and DPVA have been sending out, but again, no disclaimers. So who knows who is financing these? More than casting blame, it’s a transparency issue.
Previous DCCC or DPVA mailers have the disclaimer, because they are (presumably) experienced enough to know what happens if you *don’t* include it. IIRC, both orgs have denied sending these mailers. I can’t imagine either outfit making such a silly mistake.
Yet so long as no one raises their hand and takes responsiblity, prosecution is more than likely inevitable. Though I have to admit, the Perriello campaign’s retort on the DISCLOSE Act was a very fit response.
And yours was not…
I won’t argue that the DISCLOSE Act retort wasn’t glib – it certainly was – but isn’t it already against FEC rules to send these mailers anonymously? The DCCC and DPVA appear to think so. In which case, forgive my ignorance, but how would an additional layer of regulation have either stopped or exposed the sender in this case? The retort strikes me as mere political opportunism – clever but specious.
The question is, how did this “phantom” organization get a registered voter list (assuming it only went to registered voters)? Under VA law, only elected and party officials are allowed to have those.
This type of thing is also happening in the 2nd. I have received two pro-Golden/anti-Rigell flyers and BOTH did not have a disclaimer on them as to who paid for it.
William,
Maybe, just maybe, this conservative website wouldn’t be so skeptical of unions if their leadership didn’t overwhelmingly support financially and with manpower the liberal agenda.
Just a thought.
A worker for Century Link just told me the company is going to drop insurance coverage and pay the fine.Boy was he pissed at Obama and Perriello.
oh shoot! I got a robo call for Jeff Clark but hung up. then it dawned on me that I should have listened to “paid for & authorized by….”
will white: perhaps centurylink is a big enough entity (like the teacher’s union, McDonald’s & others) that can get a 1 year waiver on Obamacare reqmts. and while that would be great for centurylink, there are lots of businesses that don’t have clout with HHS.
honestly, who in their right mind believes that we can insure 30 million more people for less money?
I haven’t gotten the Jeff Clark robocall yet, but Mrs. Kenney did get the Perriello one.
I’d be interested to hear the “paid for and authorized by” on it as well — in 2006 and 2008, they were using Indian call centers so that no one could trace the robocall… devious, eh?
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.