Category: campaign

I’m speechless.

First Post: https://utah44.com/slushy-campaign-finances/
Update: https://utah44.com/teuscher-pierucci-and-the-conservative-millennial-pac/

The response (below) from disclosure@utah.gov confirms that in July 2023 a total of $1,500 was transferred to Candice Pierucci two months in advance by Jordan Teuscher (apparently acting as an officer of the Conservative Millennials PAC) that went unreported for two months before it was disclosed on their campaign reports. Even though https://disclosures.utah.gov/File/279 states that contributions must be reported within 31 days of receipt.

Summarizing:

• The Conservative Millennials PAC forwarded money through Jordan Teuscher to Candice Pierucci in July 2023 that was unreported for two months, in violation of disclosure rules.
• Jordan Teuscher either transferred money into his personal account (this would be a separate violation it it occurred), or has at least three accounts (his personal account, the Teuscher campaign account, and the Conservative Millennials PAC account) tied to his personal Venmo. The Office of the Utah Lieutenant Governor makes it clear that Venmo can be tied to multiple personal and campaign accounts used to receive, transfer and spend money, even though it is being used for all intents and purposes as a co-mingled financial account.
• Jordan does not disclose his role as an intermediary who received funds from the Conservative Millennials PAC (of which he is a primary officer) in transferring the funds to Candice Pierucci using his personal Venmo, which should be a violation of disclosure rules.
• Candice Pierucci fails to report the July campaign donation she received from Teuscher for two months, which is a violation of disclosure rules.

And the Lieutenant Governor’s office plans to do nothing about it.

Their email closes by saying: “If you don’t like or agree with the laws, please work with your legislators to improve them. Should you win the election you would have the opportunity to propose new legislation as well.”

Does Utah really care about ethics? Do we care about transparency and disclosure? Does it matter that the Republican Lieutenant Governor’s office weighs in favor of two Republican legislators and a Republican PAC who are clearly engaged in improper handling of campaign finances that benefitted them?

This is a continuation of my first post at https://utah44.com/slushy-campaign-finances/

Today I received the following:

Thank you for following up on our additional inquiry. Our initial determination stands as you provided no evidence of wrongdoing or specific code violations other than to disagree that using Venmo is mingling personal and campaign funds. That is to say, we do not view the way Representative Tesucher has represented his use of Venmo as a violation of Utah campaign finance law.

The code requires separate bank accounts, which the representative has. We have confirmed this with him on two occasions. Based upon the definition of “transactional intermediary” in 20A-11-101.5, and the representation that campaign funds are being swept into a campaign account where they are used for campaign expenditures. These transactions are being reported properly. Therefore, we find no violation of Utah law and consider this issue resolved.

Office of the Utah Lieutenant Governor

So let’s get into specifics, because I’m not sure that everything I recorded at in my previous post was reviewed or investigated.

There is evidence of an undisclosed transaction involving Jordan Teuscher, Candice Pierucci, and the Conservative Millennial PAC that was found in Teuscher’s Venmo history. Teuscher transferred money to Pierucci on July 7, 2023 with a note “Conservative Millennial PAC Donation” that is not reported.

Here’s the proof:

Reference: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title20A/Chapter11/20A-11-S201.html

The Office of the Utah Lieutenant Governor allows a candidate to connect a campaign account to Venmo, a mobile payment service and use that as an intermediary system to send and receive payments. I am asking the Office of the Utah Lieutenant Governor to provide an explicit statement that confirms funds can be co-mingled in mobile payment service accounts that have been set up with access to both personal and campaign accounts, and/or publish this to the disclosures site FAQ at https://disclosures.utah.gov/Help/Faqs.

The Problem

The Venmo app has a feature that allows an account to connect more than one backend bank to a single account. When money is received, it goes into the Venmo balance. When money is sent, you can choose whether to use Venmo balance funds, or money from one of the registered bank accounts. You can also transfer money in your Venmo balance to one of the registered bank accounts. It is for all intents and purposes a financial account that co-mingles funds.

What’s bothering me about this is that it appears the Office of the Utah Lieutenant Governor will allow funds to be co-mingled in a mobile payment service account. The question becomes whether the provider of a mobile payment service account (i.e. Venmo) is considered a “financial institution”.  I would argue that they are. Venmo offers direct deposit, debit and credit cards.   Setting up multiple transfer accounts with Venmo is similar to how a standard bank account works.  A bank allows to receive and make payments, as well as transfer to third parties.  Venmo is for all intents and purposes a financial institution.

Further, what is the audit capacity for forensic research of these types of payments? I’m concerned that this is breaching the “trust but verify” capability of their office. 

Specifically: 

• How do they identify that the amount received in a Venmo transaction is the same amount that is deposited into a campaign account? 
• How do they identify that the timeliness of the transaction is reported to avoid disclosure reporting requirements (ex: is the contribution received when the money is transferred in Venmo, or when the balance is transferred to an account? Is the contribution ever reported if it never touches the actual campaign account? )
• How is money tracked if it is in a Venmo balance, never transferred to the campaign account, then used to pay for something else? 
• How do they track payments or money transfers between two candidates that both use a mobile payment service like Venmo? 
• What is an intermediary, if that person is allowed to receive funds and forward them to another party, and that transaction is not reported?
• Are they able to request account audits from candidates for mobile payment services?  
• Are there specific mobile payment services that are allowed, or disallowed?  Not all mobile payment services allow for a single account to create backend connections to multiple bank accounts.

My concern is that what’s in place is an honor system that can easily be disregarded, and the lack of public transparency is of significant concern.  I contend that it is also a violation of Utah Code 20A-11-S201.

Spot the Difference

Situation One: A candidate opens a bank account, and begins to conduct transactions through it. The transactions include personal deposits and expenditures, as well as processing of campaign-related donations, expenses and transfers of money to other candidates. The candidate connects a separate personal bank account and a dedicated campaign account to this bank account so that they can transfer funds to and from the general account to the personal and campaign accounts. This is a campaign violation for co-mingled accounts.

Situation Two: A candidate opens a mobile payment account, and begins to conduct transactions through it. The transactions include personal deposits and expenditures, as well as processing of campaign-related donations, expenses and transfers of money to other candidates. The candidate connects a separate personal bank account and a dedicated campaign account to this mobile payment account so that they can transfer funds to and from the mobile payment account to the personal and campaign accounts. This is (apparently) NOT a campaign violation for co-mingled accounts.

My concern is that what’s in place is lazy. It is dependent on an honor system that can easily be disregarded, and the lack of public transparency is of significant concern.  If a candidate wants to play fast and loose with both campaign contributions and campaign payments, there is no verifiable means of holding that candidate accountable. 

A Gold Standard

• A campaign account is set up using personal ID, a signed candidacy declaration from the clerk’s office, and a Section 527 – Political organization Federal EIN for the campaign.
• Cash and checks are deposited and processed through the account.
• Online payment services have a singular relationship to the campaign account, and can electronically deposit funds to the account (ex: ActBlue online donation form for political candidates)
• Payments from the account should be in the form of debit card, online debit using the bank routing and account number, check or certified check drawn from the account.
• A cash withdrawal from a campaign account is typically discouraged, but can be done with a receipt to verify the expense.

The Case Applied

From disclosure@utah.gov, sent May 9, 2024

“Potential co-mingling of funds:
A Venmo account has the capacity to house multiple bank accounts. With this knowledge, and information provided by Rep. Teuscher regarding his specific Venmo account, we find that funds have not been co-mingled. As Rep. Teuscher has separate bank accounts within his one Venmo account, there has been no violation of 20A-11-201.“

---

Jordan Teuscher (Utah Representative for House District 44) uses a personal Venmo account to receive campaign contributions, and to make campaign expenditures.  The Venmo account activity is not limited to campaign related activity.  The majority of transactions on his Venmo account @jordanteuscher are clearly personal in nature, which indicates this account is not (or should not be) tied to his separate campaign bank account. Teuscher appears to be co-mingling funds through his Venmo account in violation of Utah law. 

Teuscher either knew or should have known that it is impermissible for a statewide candidate to co-mingle funds. Teuscher – who serves as the chairman of the House Committee on Ethics – should be versed in these regulations. It is troubling that Teuscher is looking to further weaken Utah campaign finance reporting laws with the introduction of HB160 in 2024.

Multiple campaign violations appear to occur in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023.

Here is the proof:

In a Substack post on February 16, Governor Spencer Cox presented what he called An accounting of my actions on DEI. It appears to be his first article, and utilizes a “coming-soon” suffix in the URL that suggests it was hastily published.

Not to offend his good readers, he has the audacity to call his critics light readers who communicate with elected officials in 280 characters, stoked by anger, reactionary/don’t read the articles, don’t listen to the interview, the progressive left. Way to #DisagreeBetter, amiright? There is one truth – that there is a “growing and divisive political ideology behind DEI”, but it’s coming from the conservative right.

He quickly calls what is now a cherry-picked conservative trope: “We used to aspire towards the dream of Martin Luther King Jr. of a future where our children “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”” Maybe we start by educating Governor Cox on the Martin Luther continued to say in the very next paragraph of his “I Have a Dream” speech.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right down in Alabama little Black boys and Black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.”

Martin Luther King – I Have a Dream, 1963

The difference, apparently, is that we are in Utah, but our governor still has his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification.

Utahns live in a heavily gerrymandered state bent on breaking the voices of what he calls the “progressive left”. He disregards our history; that Republican legislators who thwart the will of its people by over-riding voter mandates, then attempt to legislate future opposition from referendums by setting the bar higher. Our governor signs bills that take away freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. He does not veto, he does not comment, he simply signs. His republican counterparts submit bills that dismantle peoples’ right to organize, or to force their religion into schools, or to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her own body. And in light of DEI, he works with his Republican legislators to weaken citizen review boards after a series of police shootings that killed POC and disabled individuals. And he takes away the offices of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion from our universities and for public places, even after Davis School District is sued successfully not just once, but TWICE for discrimination. Even though we have a problem with Patriot Front placing banners on our overpasses, and passing Nazi literature around on campuses. He says we need a neutral space to let everyone be comfortable thinking and saying whatever they want. And it’s all for a better purpose, right? Nope.

None of this is new. In fact, the playbook for this doesn’t even start in Utah. In 2023 the far right introduced at least 65 bills to limit DEI in higher education in 25 states and the U.S. Congress. This year there are currently more than 30 bills across the U.S. targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives at public colleges. Utah is a cuckold to the ideology of a national far-right agenda. Bills introduced in Utah followed other states actions, and are typically copy/pastes of other state bills.

He says “I had no idea that there were these many programs, these many people working in these offices. And so then the question is, well, what are the outcomes? Are we actually making a difference? And we’re not seeing any evidence that they’re actually working.” The funny thing about providing safe spaces for marginalized groups is that when it’s working, nothing happens. Nothing makes the papers. I’m not sure what Cox was expecting. Ironically, he broke DEI because it was working.

Grievances about the illogic of his article:

• Cox really doesn’t like equity. He states in the 2nd paragraph of section “The problem with DEI” that “it’s important to note that the E in DEI stands for “equity” – equal outcomes, and not “equality” – equal opportunity).” Inclusion comes with equitable outcomes, not with the presentation of opportunity.
• It’s clear that Cox doesn’t know what “woke” means. Her prefers to use the conservative slur that the word is evolving to, and fails to recognize the significance of that word’s history. Stay woke, people.
• He claims that diversity programs are “drawing battle lines” and references Eboo Patel to justify his stance, but fails to recognize that Patel was recognized and celebrated by the University of Utah department of Equity, Diversion & Inclusion mere months ago.
• His primary evidence is that a DEI statement was included in university application packages. This is literally the only tangible thing that he can point to when claiming that Universities are using identitarianism to force people into boxes, and into victimhood. And this is AFTER he signed legislation last year that prevent teachers from displaying personal items in their rooms. God forbid that anyone actually have an identity. If this is supposed to be Cox’s smoking gun, why all the huffery puffery when it could have been resolved with a simple HR update?
• In his arguments, he defends white kids, and he defends men. He says “I care deeply about our brown kids and our black kids.” I would ask for the numbers here, because he doesn’t provide any.
• Cox says “Government can and must be race-blind, but that does not make us racism-blind.” This is not true. Government must respect the rights of its constituents, but nowhere does it say to be “race-blind”. To say this is to ignore history, culture, and identity.
• Cox mentions a history of segregation, but fails to mention the actions of the legislature (again) using vouchers to segregate kids with disabilities away from public schools, or to consolidate programs away from home schools.
• Offhand, I’m also concerned that Cox’s chosen platform happens to be Substack, which has recently been described as a newsletter-hosting site with a Nazi problem, and accused of paid advances to several controversial writers, while some writers with long histories of anti-trans work are thriving.

The problem, apparently, is that Cox wants to turn a blind eye to the real problems that DEI offices were addressing by disbanding these offices, creating a “success and support” office with no parameters to build from and with no federal supports. His defense of this horrid legislation will result in the loss of federal dollars for state programs, potentially lose Salt Lake’s bid to host the 2034 Winter Olympics, and will certainly be fought in courts at the expense of Utahns.

MORE READING

• Anti-DEI Efforts Are the Latest Attack on Racial Equity and Free Speech (aclu.org)
• What’s lost in dismantling DEI offices (opinion) (insidehighered.com)
• University of Utah highlights positive impacts of equity, diversity and inclusion programs (ksl.com)