Does anyone check these reports?

From time to time, I am admittedly confused. Usually, after going back over the steps that led to my confusion, I can resolve the issue to my own satisfaction. Other times, I have to ask for help, and this is one of those times.

After going over and over the financial reports I posted earlier this week, a nagging question stuck in my head and I went back to the Utah Reporting System to look for an answer. Instead, I found another nagging question, and now I can't find an answer to either question.

Here's the first question: In the reports filed with the Lieutenant Governor's office, why do the contributions (including in-kind contributions) made by Parents for Choice in Education (funded primarily by All Children Matter of Michigan) in 2006 not match the contributions reported by Rep. Carl Wimmer in 2006?

The question arose Wednesday after I read Sen. Scott Jenkins's guest commentary in the Standard, and I wondered if he had received contributions from PCE in the past. Of course, I found the in-kind contribution of more than $2,000 paid to Majority Strategies for some "direct mail" that was sent to Sen. Jenkins's constituents. But it took me a few minutes to find the expenditure because while Sen. Jenkins reported the contribution clearly on his filing, PCE reported the expenditure to a third party (on Sen. Jenkins's behalf) on its own filing. In that case, everything checked out, the figures were the same.

But I wondered if the inclusion of third parties might make it enticing for some to "play" with the reporting system. To test the question, I picked a name on PCE's expenditure list: Rep. Carl Wimmer. And here's what I found.

PCE reports making a direct contribution of $2,000 to Rep. Wimmer's campaign on February 27, 2006. Rep. Wimmer reports receiving a direct contribution of $2,000 from PCE on April 1, so aside from the month's difference in time, that checks out.

Next, Rep. Wimmer reports receiving an "in-kind" contribution from PCE on March 3, 2006, totaling $409.14. PCE reports making that "in-kind" contribution on Rep. Wimmer's behalf to pay the Skybox Sports Grille for a "volunteer dinner" on March 3. So that checks out, too.

But then Rep. Wimmer reports receiving an "in-kind" contribution totaling $2,000 from PCE on March 10, 2006, but there is no such "in-kind" contribution in that amount associated with Rep. Wimmer's name on PCE's report, either before or after March 10.

And Rep. Wimmer reports receiving another "in-kind" contribution totaling $332.50 from PCE on April 17, 2006, but there is no such "in-kind" contribution in that amount associated with Rep. Wimmer's name on PCE's report, either before or after April 17. It appears that these "in-kind" contributions may have come from somewhere, because Rep. Wimmer includes them in his total campaign receipts, but that they didn't come from PCE, because PCE never reported making them.

However, PCE does report an "in-kind" contribution of $1,663.41, paid to Progressive Direct Mail, for "postage" on behalf of Rep. Wimmer on May 9. And it reports an "in-kind" contribution of $567.50, paid to Summit Consulting Group, for a "phone bank" on behalf of Rep. Wimmer on May 25. And it reports an "in-kind" contribution of $666.25, paid to Northwest Litho Graphics, for "t-shirts" on behalf of Rep. Wimmer on September 25. But none of these "in-kind" contributions from PCE are included in Rep. Wimmer's reports.

When I totaled the contributions that Rep. Wimmer reports receiving in 2006 from PCE, including "in-kind" contributions, they come to $4,741.64. But when I totaled the contributions that PCE reported making to (or on behalf of) Rep. Wimmer in 2006, including "in-kind" contributions, they come to $5,306.30.

The two figures don't match, and the reporting that documents them doesn't match, and this is what confuses me.

I thought it may have been a glitch, and that Rep. Wimmer's case was just a poor example to test my question. So I chose another name, and that leads to my second question.

The second question is slightly different from the first one: In the reports filed with the Lieutenant Governor's office, why do the contributions (including in-kind contributions AND loans) made by Parents for Choice in Education (funded primarily by All Children Matter of Michigan) in 2006 not match the contributions reported by Mark Jacobs in 2006? (The difference is the addition of "loans" to the reporting.)

On his filings, Mr. Jacobs reports receiving five different contributions from PCE in 2006, including one "in-kind" contribution, but all five are counted as "loans." The first, an "in-kind" contribution totaling $782.70, was received March 1, 2006. PCE reports making an "in-kind" expenditure totaling $782.70, paid to the Skybox Sports Grille for a "volunteer dinner" on behalf of Mr. Jacobs, but it reports making the expenditure two days after Mr. Jacobs reports receiving it. In any case, the figure matches on both reports.

Mr. Jacobs reports receiving the second "loan" from PCE, this one totaling $2,000, on March 4, 2006. PCE records making a direct contribution of $2,000, not a loan, to Mr. Jacobs on March 1. Aside from the slight discrepancy in dates, this figure is matched also.

Mr. Jacobs reports receiving the third "loan" from PCE, this one totaling $500, on March 18, 2006. PCE records making a direct contribution of $500, not a loan, to Mr. Jacobs on March 16. Again, aside from the dates, this figure is matched.

Mr. Jacobs reports receiving the fourth "loan" from PCE, this one totaling $2,000, on May 5, 2006. PCE records making a direct contribution of $2,000, not a loan, to Mr. Jacobs on May 5. Both the date and figure matches.

And Mr. Jacobs reports receiving the fifth "loan" from PCE, this one totaling $1,500, on June 1, 2006. And again, PCE records making a direct contribution of $1,500, not a loan, to Mr. Jacobs on the day before, May 31. Again, aside from the dates, this figure is matched.

But PCE reports making five more contributions, all "in-kind" contributions, on behalf of Mr. Jacobs, and none of the five is reflected on his filing. PCE reports making four separate payments to Progressive Direct Mail, all for "postage," all on behalf of Mr. Jacobs. The payments are recorded as $759.68 on May 9, 2006; $741 on June 6; $843.78 on June 12; and another $741 on June 13. Finally, PCE reports paying Northwest Litho Graphics $666.25 for "t-shirts" on behalf of Mr. Jacobs on September 12.

When I total the figures that Mr. Jacobs reported receiving from PCE in 2006, it comes to $6,782.70. But when I totaled the contributions that PCE reported making to (or on behalf of) Mr. Jacobs in 2006, including "in-kind" contributions and "loans," they come to $9,058.01.

As a footnote, I checked Mr. Jacobs's expenditure sheet online, and it shows no re-payment yet of any of these "loans" to PCE. However, no reports are yet available for 2007, so these loans may have been repaid and just not reported to the Lieutenant Governor's office.

So, in the cases of both Rep. Wimmer and Mr. Jacobs, two names pulled at convenience from the campaign filings of PCE, it appears that PCE made substantially more expenditures on behalf of candidates than the candidates themselves reported receiving. This is confusing. It makes me wonder whether anyone at the state level is responsible for overseeing these reports and checking them for accuracy or validity.

And I wonder, too, how appropriate it is for a political action committee to make "loans" to legislative campaigns. Is that a good process? Doesn't it leave unpaid debts hanging over a lawmaker, if he wins his race? And does a political action committee have the authority to "forgive" such debts, under certain circumstances? And finally, would a lawmaker with those sorts of debts be likely to represent his constituents' needs, or the PAC's desires, on an issue, if the two were ever in conflict?

Does anyone know the answers to any of these questions? Is anyone else confused by these things?