Friday, August 20, 2010

David Hall's Campaign Financial Report issue resolved.

There has been considerable concern on the part of many Republicans about David Hall's improper filing of a campaign finance report with the Federal Election Commission. That issue now appears to be resolved.

The primary issue was that it appeared that David Hall accepted a contribution from a corporation named AHC. A candidate cannot legally accept corporate funding. As it turns out, AHC is not a corporation but a sole proprietorship owned by David Hall. Hall is changing his FEC filling to reflect that he gave himself an in-kind contribution rather than receiving a contribution from AHC. That should resolve the issue.

During the campaign, Hall released a poll showing he was the leading contender in the Republican primary 5th Congressional District race. At the time I didn't believe it, but as it turned out he was. His exit polling was quite accurate.

Now, there is nothing wrong with a campaign doing its own polling. But why did Hall go to great pains to put up a bare bones website through VistaPrint and tout the poll as scientific and make it appear that the poll was independent? I wish he had not tried to deceive. Nevertheless, if the FEC is satisfied, I am satisfied and will overlook this minor attempt to deceive and will work for his victory.

Below is the Hall letter to the FEC. To see the original scanned letter, follow this link: Letter to FEC.

David Hall for Congress
Jeannie M. Isbell, Treasurer
5673 Lickton Pike
Goodlettsville, TN 37072

Identification Number: C00480319

August 12, 2010

Dear Ms. Jill Sugarman,

Pursuant to our phone conversation today, I am submitting the following to answer your questions and provide documentation of subsequent actions to remedy the transparency issues and apparent error in verifying in-kind contributions.

1. AHC is not a corporation. It is a sole proprietorship operated by David Hall. The language is vague on this issue and we felt it was an appropriate representation of the expenditure since it was Mr. Hall's resources. While clarification may be cloudy, we will take your recommendation in changing the name to reflect the in-kind contribution as being made by the individual rather than the sole proprietorship.

An erroneous assumption was made concerning Roberts Brothers' Coach Company. This is a corporation owned by the Roberts brothers. Mr. Gary Roberts offered the use of a bus for campaign events on 4/9/2010, 6/18/2010, & 6/23/2010. To comply with FEC guidelines we have issued a check to Mr. Roberts in the amount of $1,725.00 which equals the declared value of the use of the bus. We have enclosed a copy of this check for your inspection. The refund will be reported on Schedule B on the next filing since the refund is being made in that period.

I trust these preemptive actions will prevent the need for any further legal action.

2. We have provided a more detail explanation of individual in-kind receipts and disbursements. Should you find the additional explanation inadequate, we will amend to provide any additional information requested.

Thank you for the opportunity to take corrective actions to provide the most complete and accurate disclosure possible. It is our intent to provide a transparent representation of the campaign finances and welcome any interaction to ensure this goal is achieved.


Jeannie M. Isbell
David Hall for Congress

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories


  1. Nice letter, but let's all wait and see how the FEC responds, since they have the ultimate say on whether a matter is "closed" or not.

  2. Nothing is resolved until the FEC says it is. Writing a letter to the FEC and then posting it for anyone to see, does not settle anything.

  3. Rod, one of the things you said in the post really bothered me. You mentioned a bare bones website, but have you ever been within the workings of a campaign? I have, and I can tell you that you do not have time to fart let alone work on a website that does not pertain to the campaign at hand.

  4. Meliah,
    My point in mentioning the bare-bone site of AHC is that the only reason a site was created was to mislead. AHC is David Hall. That was political gamesmanship. Deceptive? yes. By valuing the contribution at $200,000 he created the impression his campaign was financially more successful than it was and he also created the impression that a legitimate third party was doing the polling. I don't like it but it is not that big of a deal. It is certainly not going to keep me from supporting his candidacy against Jim Cooper. It is not that different than creating a phony affinity group, say Veterans for Rod Williams and issuing an endorsement when Veterans for Rod Williams is me and my brother-in-law. Deceptive, yes but not illegal and not that big of a deal.

  5. Curious. Since when was being deceptive with voters less than illegal? Lying under oath in Court is a crime, but lying to the FEC about the source of your funds, lying to the FEC about the amount of the funds, and lying to voters about the depth of your campaign is no big deal? I would think that it would be a big deal since we are talking about determining the credibility of a candidate and whether he will keep his word.

  6. Well, there are levels of deception. Overvaluing the in-kind contribution of doing your own polling is just not that serious. Who is say what the value of that service is? I don’t like it, but it is not going to keep me from supporting him. The choice is between David Hall who inflated the value of his polling, and Jim Cooper who votes with Nancy Pelosi. I am supporting David Hall.

  7. The voters are asked now to choose between the lesser of two deceivers. Sounds like politics as usual.

  8. Another amended filing by Mr. Hall for July. That makes FIVE. How many does it take until they get it right?