In this post we explore the possibility that Council Member Kristin Mink’s campaign took almost $9,000 from the public election fund beyond what it was allowed.
Page 17 of the summary guide for public funding, published by both the state and county boards of elections, states that a district candidate cannot receive more than $125,000 per election cycle.
According to its finance reports, the Mink campaign received $134,022.16 of public funds, exceeding the allowable limit by $9,022.16. All the gory detail of those transactions appears in the following extracts from the reports, which you can download from the state board of elections’s Campaign Reporting Information System.
Report name: 02/14/2022 Matching Fund Report Gubernatorial
03/14/2022 Matching Fund Report Gubernatorial
05/02/2022 Matching Fund Report Gubernatorial
06/07/2022 Pre-Primary1 Gubernatorial (amended)
07/03/2022 Pre-Primary2 Gubernatorial
10/03/2022 Matching Fund Report Gubernatorial (amended)
11/15/2022 Post-General Gubernatorial (amended)
08/01/2022 Matching Fund Report Gubernatorial (amendment #2)
$119.16 was returned to the public fund
We see that the Mink campaign very possibly overcharged the county election fund by $134,022.16 − 125,000 − 119.16 = $8,903.00.
What stings most is that CM Mink paid over $15,000 to a teacher for “consulting,” and recaptured a personal loan she made to her campaign. A better approach would have been to first pay back the election fund, and then, if there is anything left over, repay her personal loan.
