Congressional Candidate LuAnn Bennett Claims Leadership of Phony “Charity”

In Northern Virginia, Democrats have staked their hopes for picking up a House seat in the Tenth Congressional District on LuAnn Bennett, a politically-entangled real estate developer from Washington, D. C., who is proving to be a weak and poorly vetted candidate in what has been billed as a “Top 10” race of the 2016 cycle by national pundits and political analysts.

Last week, Bearing Drift covered the first of many of LuAnn Bennett’s politically-entangled real estate development deals which constitute conflicts of interest for an aspiring member of Congress. Upon further investigation, Bennett has listed in her campaign biography a board membership in a phony “charity” incorporated for the apparent purpose of smoothing over the politically controversial real estate deal.

Bennett was hardly the first choice for Democrats, who had hoped for a candidate who held prior elected office and would bring to the race a legislative record, as well as a base of constituents and past contributors. When none emerged, Bennett moved out of D. C. and into the Tenth to run for Congress. Having donated a total of $147,881.58 to federal candidates, Bennett’s deep pockets seemed capable of relieving fundraising pressure on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) in what could well become one of 2016’s most expensive House races.

However, as more becomes known about Bennett and her real estate dealings, serious questions are emerging concerning her electability and fitness to serve in the halls of Congress, as well as the degree to which she has been vetted as a candidate by the DCCC.

In one deal, Bennett and her company collected over $5 million from the Government Publishing Office by renting to the agency a parcel of land for which Bennett’s company held a sweetheart lease from the District. Next door, the Bennett Group developed the District’s first Wal-Mart – despite Bennett hypocritically campaigning alongside groups calling for hiking the federal minimum wage to $15. Bennett even lent her name to DCCC’s “Raise the Wage!” campaign, which has targeted, unsurprisingly, Wal-Mart.

Bennett was able to make these deals happen, in part, thanks to her political connections with Washington power brokers such as “super-lobbyist” and Bennett Group business partner David Wilmot, who served not only as Wal-Mart’s lobbyist within the District, but also, as a personal stakeholder in the real estate connected with the project. Wilmot was among Bennett’s first donors to her Congressional campaign, giving $1000 on Dec. 29th, according to FEC records.

As reported by the Washington Times, Bennett was able to leverage her political influence to escape paying the District over $35.5 million under earlier agreements governing the sites around New Jersey Avenue and H Street NW. Among other development stipulations was the construction of a “Minority Educational Foundation” which was never built.

Yet, in the biography published on Bennett’s campaign website, she lists, among other accomplishments, membership on the “New Jersey & H Educational Foundation Advisory Board.”

According to records maintained by the District’s Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, the New Jersey & H Educational Foundation was incorporated and registered on December 9th, 2011, listing as its registered agent the commercial real estate law firm of Grossberg, Yochelson, Fox & Beyda – the same law firm which serves as the registered agent for the Bennett Group.

This “charity” does not appear to be active. Bearing Drift was unable to locate any filing by the organization of IRS Form 990, the return required of tax-exempt organizations. Pursuant to federal law, Form 990 filings are public records.

Furthermore, the foundation’s status is listed as “revoked” according to district records, which show its most recent annual report as having been filed on March 26th, 2012.

Bearing Drift has also been unable to locate any evidence that the New Jersey & H Educational Foundation ever provided any program services to any individuals, or in any way existed in the real world. It appears that this non-profit, listed prominently in LuAnn Bennett’s campaign biography, is nothing more than a paper entity formed to give D. C. politicians a “community involvement” talking point when explaining to their constituents why they approved the development of a controversial Wal-Mart as a favor to LuAnn Bennett and her business partner David Wilmot.

As far as the IRS is concerned, Bennett’s foundation hasn’t filed a tax return as a tax-exempt organization.

As far as the District is concerned, Bennett’s foundation is not an active corporate entity, having not filed an annual report since 2012.

Why, then, does LuAnn Bennett list a ghost foundation in her campaign biography?

In dishonestly claiming board membership with a ghost charity apparently formed to provide political cover for a controversial real estate deal, Bennett is not reassuring voters of her ability to serve honestly and impartially as a member of Congress. Rather, she’s proving herself to be too politically entangled and opaque to be worthy of consideration for high office.

Considering these candidate flaws and lapses in honesty, it isn’t surprising that Bennett would run a false and negative campaign against her opponent, Congresswoman Barbara Comstock, who Bennett attacked with with false and exaggerated statistics which had received a “mostly false” rating from Politifact Virginia and two Pinocchios from the Washington Post.

Before that, Bennett and her allies absurdly attempted to smear Comstock as “anti-woman.” Shortly thereafter, Bennett attempted to falsely paint Comstock as an opponent of transportation funding, even though she bucked her party to oppose cuts to Metro while calling out the system’s “culture of incompetence” which she said was endangering riders and degrading service. When those false attacks failed to stick, Bennett worked with a friendly reporter to falsely link Comstock to Donald Trump – even though Comstock led Virginia’s delegation in opposing Trump’s remarks, vocally supported Marco Rubio in Virginia’s presidential primary, and gave back Trump’s contributions without being prompted.

Two things are certain in this race:

First, LuAnn Bennett will continue pursuing her false and negative campaign as a means to district from her own deep flaws as a candidate.

Second, as time goes on, more questions will emerge concerning LuAnn Bennett’s honesty, integrity, and fitness to serve.

Fasten your seatbelts, for this Congressional contest is bound to be a bumpy ride.