[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

How Bad is the Durkee Mess?

by: Brian Leubitz

Tue Sep 13, 2011 at 08:32:18 AM PDT


Former campaign treasurer may have stolen millions of dollars from SoCal Democratic campaigns

by Brian Leubitz

The Kinde Durkee debacle is widening in scope and depth.  If you are on many Democratic email lists, you may have noticed a slew of emails in your inbox either telling you that their bank account was wiped out or asking for money.  Yesterday, we learned that Sen. Feinstein, who is looking at reelection for next year, might have lost millions of dollars:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said her campaign is among those that may have been "wiped out" by a Burbank-based Democratic campaign treasurer who was arrested on federal fraud charges earlier this month.

Kinde Durkee is accused of taking thousands of dollars from the campaigns of several elected officials, including Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove), Rep. Susan A. Davis (D-San Diego) and Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana). The Los Angeles County Democratic Party reported that more than $200,000 had been taken from its fund. (LA Times)

First, to clarify, Sen. Feinstein doesn't know if she was really "wiped out," but some money was stolen.  Part of the problem is that the bank that Durkee used is being rather unhelpful.  She kept millions of dollars at the bank, and they are concerned for their own liability.  I have heard that they are now attempting to get campaigns to sign a waiver of legal liability to access their accounts.

I'm not giving the bank, or any of the campaigns, any legal advice, but let me explain a legal concept right quick: promises given in exchange for no consideration are called "illusory" and are thus unenforceable.  The campaigns should legally have the right to access their accounts.  The money in those accounts belongs to them.  Giving them the access they are legally empowered to have is not consideration. Heck, even giving them the money to transfer out of the account is not consideration.  It is their money, and they should be able to access it.

That being said, the scope of the mess is growing ever wider.  It appears that Durkee played fast and loose with campaign funds for years.  Much of that time after a San Francisco Chronicle report about a "Californians for Obama" scam that Durkee was a part of.

Of, course, there is one more issue here: California campaigns have given far too much power to external campaign treasurers.  They are given sole access to bank accounts, sole authority to write checks, and typically get very little oversight from the campaigns.  If we are to learn anything from this mess, we should be sure that campaigns are better managed, we have better oversight systems, and campaigns don't allow individuals too much access.  Campaign treasurers are 99.99 honest, but at the same time we need to ensure that campaigns see actual bank statements once in a while, know how much money is in their account, and can handle their business in case of emergency.

Brian Leubitz :: How Bad is the Durkee Mess?
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

would this make it easier for primary challengers (4.00 / 1)
to dem pols who used durkee's services? especially combined with the new districts, it could open up the field  significantly, if the incumbant money advantage is dented. i would love to see a challenger to feinstein.

I for one would (0.00 / 0)
Not like see a challenger to Feinstein, It's better the Devil Ya know, than the Devil Ya don't know and right now a Republican Devil makes My anxiety go through the roof.

[ Parent ]
please name the republican who could win statewide (4.00 / 2)
in a contested senate race. feinstein isn't holding back a deluge of electable republicans. for 12 years now, the only republican to win statewide against a democrat not named cruz bustamante was arnold schwarzeneggar, and his career is effectively finished.

boxer shows that you don't need a DINO to hold a senate seat, feinstein's significantly right of the state's political center.


[ Parent ]
Steve Poisner (4.00 / 1)
Rich, rested and nutty.

[ Parent ]
Im... (0.00 / 0)
I am encouraging Dan Choi to run. I think Republicans need to get someone radical, young and new.  

[ Parent ]
Is he a Republican? (8.00 / 1)
Tell me the answer before I even try to process that suggestion.

[ Parent ]
poisner couldn't even beat whitman (0.00 / 0)
his statewide win was against bustamante, which is basically a bye given how awful a candidate cruz was by that point. no way poisner could win a senate seat at the federal level, where democratic issues are especially resonant with the CA electorate, and the common blue-state divided govt "put a GOP governor there to keep 'em honest" argument fails to obtain.

[ Parent ]
"Couldn't even beat Whitman"? (0.00 / 0)
You think that beating Whitman was easy?  Jerry Brown would beg to differ.

Many things that could "in no way" happen -- happen.  I lived in Pennsylvania when Rick Santorum was elected Senator.  If that can happen, this can happen.


[ Parent ]
brown barely even campaigned until labor day (0.00 / 0)
and raised a tiny amount of money relative to whitman, and still crushed her 54-41.

pennsylvania is a state with totally different political demographics, that are in many ways trending away from the old way democrats won the state, because of its aging population, the collapse of PA's manufacturing industry, and thus its old union base, etc. the comparison with CA, which is trending more and more democratic all the time because of underlying demographic and political shifts that increase the electability of the current CA democratic electoral coalition, makes no sense.

santorum wasn't a surprise. schwarzeneggar wasn't a surprise either, because of how he ran. i just don't see anyone on the horizon that can thread that needle in CA, not with how the state GOP is trending ideologically, when paired with how the electorate is trending. as long as dems don't run cruz bustamante, thry're very heavily favored, and damn near unbeatable for a senate seat, where the federal politics kill republicans in CA (GOP governors "fighting wasteful spending" are a much easier sell).


[ Parent ]
Campaign money loss (0.00 / 0)
Well Feinstein better get to fund raising quickly, As She lost a few million from Her war chest I've read. No I can't help, I would If I could, even $10 would be a problem for Me.

[ Parent ]
You (and Cruickshank) and I have had this (0.00 / 0)
"triumphalism" discussion before.  Cognitive Psychology teaches that people routinely underestimate the bounds of the reasonably possible, but are extremely adept at explaining its appearance away, so as to maintain their understanding of how things work.  I adjust my political predictions accordingly.  Of course, I hope that you're right here.

I wonder what Barbara Boxer would say about being "damn near unbeatable for a Senate seat."


[ Parent ]
boxer beat fiorina by 10% - that's not close. (5.00 / 2)
the last time either CA democrat won a senate seat by less than 10% was nearly two decades ago in the early 90s (boxer won with 4.9% in her first senate run in 1992, feinstein won with 2% in her reelection campaign during the GOP wave year of 1994). every election since then, boxer and feinstein have crushed GOP opponents. for all the talk that the commentariat throws out there about boxer supposedly being vulnerable and too left of the CA mainstream, she consistently wins with 10% or greater margins.

you're assuming that this is because of boxer and feinstein. my argument is that republicans are pretty much shut out of senate races (gubernatorial races are a very different issue, and the GOP is always more competitive there, for reasons stated upthread).

OC is simply not representative of CA's politics at the statewide level. republicans are flat out not competitive for senate races because of the issues that animate federal politics (same reason why GOP presidential candidates crash and burn here), and it takes cruz bustamante or a killer moderate GOP candidate for the GOP to be competitive for anything statewide. the fact that they could not even beat kamala harris with post-citizens united out of state corporate funding in a GOP wave year was a huge watershed in this state. that's not triumphalist, that's just the lay of the land.

if republicans were not deeply out of step with the CA political mainstream at the federal level, and the GOP could convince its primary electorate to support liberal to moderate candidates statewide, they might win races. but none of those factors are likely to change anytime soon.


[ Parent ]
I hope that we share many more years together here (0.00 / 0)
in which you are never proven wrong.  That's not how I'd bet, though.

[ Parent ]
don't bet on my inerrancy (0.00 / 0)
bet on the demographic numbers, the trends, and the past decade or so of election results.

the GOP will stay relevant at the governor level as a check on the perpetually-democratic state leg, but they're hosed at the federal level. if we had a simple majority on taxes, noone would think of them as a meaningful force in state politics.  


[ Parent ]
Certainly True! (2.50 / 2)
But is the GOP the only group that doesn't appeal statewide?

Look at the Democrats - Feinstein, Boxer, Brown.  They are so old and can stay in office only because Californians don't trust the next generation of liberals.

For those that rally around Gavin Newsome realize that he knew people would trust Brown (a guy in his 70s) over the up and comer that they didn't even debate.

Vilargosia? Despite his mass grave of skeletons in his closet this guy won mayor with a 15% turn out.  He doesn't have a base.

I wish Feinstein, Boxer, and Brown would retire. That would shake up politics more than redistricting.


[ Parent ]
say what you will (0.00 / 0)
but democrats keep winning statewide races. the GOP won't win again until they nominate a moderate who can appeal to a significant minority of liberal votes. there just aren't enough antitax conservative christian white supremacist city-haters in the state to put a majority together.

not saying democrats are awesome, but they win a hell of a lot more races than the other guys, and have a huge bench at the moment because the senate's been locked down for two decades, and term limits turf everyone else out of state office.  


[ Parent ]
what do they win? (0.00 / 0)
Every democrats that wins runs on a center-righ platform.  No PROGRESSIVE democrat will win and thats who your up and comers are.

I think first jungle primary without a brown, boxer, or Feinstein will be interesting with many progressives gnashing their teeth over the Dems.


[ Parent ]
Boxer (0.00 / 0)
First off, Barbara Boxer IS a Progressive
It's hit or miss sometimes
But, she seems to win statewide elections
(sorry, Carly)

As for Newsome....
NOBODY is rallying around Gavin
He's an opportunist without much to offer
I'd put my money on Villaraigosa, instead

I'll settle for DINO Feinstein unless a real Democrat ran against her


[ Parent ]
kamala harris? barbara boxer? deb bowen? dave jones? (0.00 / 0)
gavin newsom? john chiang? tom torlakson? center-right? maybe in europe.

i'll spot you jerry brown, although i wouldn't put him center-right so much as pro-smaller, decentralized government dedicated primarily to progressive ends (which puts him at odds with the mainstream in both party caucuses, but is resonant with a significant chunk of voters).

center-right democrats tend to lose primary races. nearly any democrat wins statewide races, unless they're running against cruz bustamante.


[ Parent ]
Core Progressive Message (0.00 / 0)
The core progressive message is increase services and increase taxes to pay for it. Who was the last democrat to run on that platform and win?  every election statewide they have run from it.

[ Parent ]
you'd do better to stick to explaining your own beliefs (0.00 / 0)
you're kind of missing the boat with progressives.

[ Parent ]
You're forgetting (0.00 / 0)
Dave Jones, John Chiang, John Perez, and others.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah, but not for Feinstein (5.00 / 1)
For many challengers -- say, Jose Solorio in 2014, SD-34 -- the answer is probably "yes."  For Feinstein, the answer is "not really."  She can just write herself a check to cover the loss it if need be.  She won't have to, though; she will probably be able to raise money more easily than any other victim.  It comes with being an influential and moderate big-state Senator.

The question to the answer you pose below is not what Republican could beat her, but what Democrat could.  Even trying to do so could be career poison.  From polls I've seen, she's the most popular politician in the state, and is willing to be Bigfoot as needed.


[ Parent ]
I thought (6.00 / 2)
this article was about Kinde Durkee.

Boy howdy! (5.75 / 4)
My bookkeeper was here yesterday and I was wondering the same things. Before she cuts checks, she send me a list of everything she'll run so I can check it. I sign everything before it goes out. She uploads a copy of my QuickBooks file to my computer twice a month in case I want to check it. Both of us can see bank balances online, but only I can make withdrawals. All of which made me wonder why none of these campaigns seemed to have any checks and balances. Nobody who was checking her work or looking at the bank balances. Nobody who reads the Chronicle.

I know my company finances are far smaller than a statewide campaign. But they're important to me. So I watch them. I know campaign finance laws are more confusing than those for my small business. That's why campaigns hire outside experts. But the principle remains the same. You watch your own money because it means more to you than to anybody else.

And the last question, why nobody paid attention to several articles in the SF Chron that go back at least a few years, goes back to something I posted a while back. When a political consultant is in, they're in. People don't look, don't ask questions, don't demand results. If all the important people use you, that's good enough. It's a closed circle that is great for entrenched consultants. But I question the value for campaigns. Even more now.

Why nobody prosecuted Durkee after the Chron expose is another question altogether. Maybe former AG Brown would like to answer that one.


Split roles (6.00 / 3)
There are two important roles regarding campaign (or business) finance: 1) receiving money and paying bills; 2) accounting for all financial transactions.

I have played both roles in campaigns, but never, never, never at the same time.  If I did the accounting and the campaign disclosure I would not have check signing authority.  If I raised and spent money, I would have nothing to do with accounting.  

Just as we engineer safety into cars and buidlings so that we do not depend on people just being careful, we need to engineer safety into campaign finance so that we do not lean completely on trust.


[ Parent ]
10 years of fines (4.00 / 1)
I read a story in a London paper this morning that said Durkee has used the money she stole to fund her "lavish lifestyle." This is not a shock, though it does disappoint any campaigns that hoped to get the money back.

More surprising was the claim that Durkee moved money between accounts to delay discovery. It seems the "unhelpful" bank would have noticed this as there's absolutely no reason why those accounts should have mixed. So they may have some explanations due as well. Which might explain why they're being so unhelpful.

Most surprising is that, not only did the SF Chron report on this 4 years ago. Not only did the Obama campaign expose her false fundraising 3 years ago. But The Independent reports she's received fines over a period of 10 years for violations of campaign finance reporting regulations. After all this, it beggars the imagination that nobody noticed there was something wrong. What she did was criminal. The fact that nobody did anything to stop her after all that is criminal negligence. A lot more people than Kindee Durkee should be in trouble.


The previous problems are not like the present one (0.00 / 0)
The "false Obama campaign" fundraising seems shady and was certainly aggressive, but I don't know that it was criminal (or even that unusual.)  It was not a red flag to expect large-scale embezzlement.

The fines for negligence were not a red flag either.  These are arcane and even Byzantine rules, in which the campaign Treasurer sometimes has to take the head for negligence by his or her clients.  I don't know that "it happens to everyone" in this business, but I wouldn't be surprised.  I also don't think that this would be classified as "criminal" as opposed to an "infraction" (that is, I think it's more like a parking ticket than a reckless driving arrest.)

This sort of embezzlement was a completely different breed of animal from these others.  Her "lavish lifestyle" -- but, Baskin & Robbins?  Lavish? -- should perhaps have been at least a yellow flag, but it's not clear to me that he lifestyle appeared to be beyond that which she should have been expected to be able to afford with legitimate profits.


[ Parent ]
Durkee Mess (0.00 / 0)

While I have heard a whole lot of asking for money, I have heard very few apologies for the mess.  Why not start there.

film production orange county (0.00 / 0)
Corporate Video and Film was launched in 1979 with one goal in mind, film production orange countyto provide Southern California with exceptional high quality video production to help companies creatively tell their story through the power of video.

Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox