John Keegan, the official from the Lou Barletta for Congress campaign who recently caught an acute case of Castoritis, responded to my article, not here, but on Gort 42. Here is his statement from Gort 42:
Here is my response:
Mr. Keegan did, indeed threaten me with legal action. He even included the charge in his email. I call that a legal threat. I asked him to provide proof to support his claim that Lou Barletta has made payments on this loan personally. In spite of repeated requests for this in the email exchanges Mr. Keegan refused to provide any proof.
He did, however, as an official of the Barletta campaign, reveal this as a loan secured by both Mr. Barletta and his wife secured by their jointly owned home.
That's an FEC violation. Mrs. Barletta was limited to a $1,000 contribution to her husband's campaign. Her half of the security for the loan was $32,500. Oops. Thanks for providing the official campaign evidence of a serious FEC violation Mr. Keegan. I imagine an official FEC complaint is already in the works against Mrs. Barletta.
Mr. Keegan can call this a smear, I call it proof.
Keegan's statement above: "He calls himself part of the "press." He should be more responsible in what he presents as "facts." I know many journalists that lost their career over fabricated information." is extremely reckless. He provided, himself, the facts behind my allegation that Mrs. Barletta violated the law. Check the link in my original story for the precedent. It's already established in the law. This statement is clearly a signal that he wants to come after me, but, again, he will deny it is a threat.
This is what the Lou Barletta campaign is all about folks, they threaten all sorts of people with ordinances, playing on fear and bigotry to advance the Mayor's political ambitions. Be very afraid of demagogues like Lou Barletta. Very afraid. Who will he decide he doesn't like next and try to run our of town? You?
Here are the facts: John Keegan wrote me voluntarily, numerous long, rambling emails containing much damaging information about his candidate. He was
unhinged upset over my opinion that the loan Lou Barletta's campaign has reported to the FEC for six years was, in fact, a personal loan and not related to the campaign. Unfortunately for Lou Barletta his Treasurer kept reporting it as a campaign loan but neglected to reveal any repayments of either principal or interest. Then the terms of the loan were renegotiated in violation of FEC rules. The FEC requires loans to be repaid, otherwise they are contributions and subject to the laws, such as the ban on corporate contributions and individual limits.
Keegan claimed, in his emails to me, that Lou Barletta and his wife mortgaged their home to secure this line of credit with the bank to pay off their 2002 campaign debt. That presents a problem because he also disclosed they own this home jointly. That's a violation of the $1000 maximum contribution Mrs. Barletta was allowed to give her husband's campaign in 2002. By FEC precedent in another 2002 case, her half of the secured loan violated this $1,000 limit by $31,500.
Here's a quote from the newspaper article about John Murtha's 2002 challenger and his fine for doing this very same thing:
"The Federal Election Commission challenged a loan made to the Mascara for Congress Campaign Committee during his unsuccessful 1992 congressional bid in the 20th District. The loan was secured by a $40,000 mortgage Mascara and his wife took on their Washington County residence.
Mascara said the FEC viewed the mortgage as an excess campaign contribution from his wife because she is a co-owner of the house."
This violation resulted in a $50,000 fine from the FEC. Mr. Keegan has gotten his candidate into some very hot water.