Looks like even if he wins the race he may be fighting criminal charges. This report from the Enquirer is fairly damning. Don't know how you can spin this.

 

Pureval or Chabot?

I'm sure he means Pureval. What are the penalties for something like that? I would assume it's some sort of fine, but I don't really know.

^ Theoretically it could be jail time. Cant see that happening. It would be a fine. But considering it would be criminal, it could cause a lot of collateral damage (having a convicted felon as your Congressman would not play very well)

having a convicted felon as your Congressman would not play very well

 

Republicans don't care.

Probably more Republicans will vote for him than before.

^ Theoretically it could be jail time. Cant see that happening. It would be a fine. But considering it would be criminal, it could cause a lot of collateral damage (having a convicted felon as your Congressman would not play very well)

 

It wouldn't be criminal unless they find evidence that he knowingly and willingly broke the law, you know, like Michael Cohen did at the behest of Donald Trump.

 

And it would be a pretty far-fetched thing to believe that he did this knowingly. For what? To save $30,000? When he has out raised the incumbent by leaps and bounds? He had tons of money in his federal account when this occurred. There was literally no reason to possibly do this on purpose.

his campaign manager was probably being lazy and they probably hadn't opened their congressional account yet or the funds were not yet in there and they wanted to get moving on a poll.

Is Pureval in more trouble than Chabot?

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/03/rep-steve-chabots-campaign-has-paid-son-in-laws-firm-more-than-150-000-web-consulting/826677001/

 

No - for several reasons, the most obvious among them being the fact that Aftab's transgression is illegal.

 

his campaign manager was probably being lazy and they probably hadn't opened their congressional account yet or the funds were not yet in there and they wanted to get moving on a poll.

 

As the article points out, there are no donation limits for county races (not to get off topic but I did not know this and am surprised this is the case). He used the county campaign account to circumvent this, which allowed his mom (yes, really) to donate $30,000, which paid for the polling.  His mom also maxed out her contribution to his Congressional campaign.

 

One big issue here is that the poll was done early on, and helped form the narrative that OH1 might be competitive. This angle is what led to an influx of donations to Aftab from all over the country. This seems far too convenient to be a simple mistake. The fact that they repeatedly attempted to cover their tracks is another telltale sign that this wasn't just an error.

 

Another issue is the blatant and unabashed lie Aftab told after initially being caught. His campaign has consistently claimed the polling was for the 2020 Clerk of Courts race. It's obvious now that's not true. 

Another issue is the blatant and unabashed lie Aftab told after initially being caught. His campaign has consistently claimed the polling was for the 2020 Clerk of Courts race. It's obvious now that's not true.

 

This is the issue for me. What were they thinking to say it was for the county campaign?

Another issue is the blatant and unabashed lie Aftab told after initially being caught. His campaign has consistently claimed the polling was for the 2020 Clerk of Courts race. It's obvious now that's not true.

 

This is the issue for me. What were they thinking to say it was for the county campaign?

 

The first statement I saw from them said that it was for both races. The latest statement from Aftab is this:

 

 

"After reviewing FEC guidance and regulations, we determined that to follow both the letter and spirit of the law, we needed to pay for the poll out of both accounts. If that turns out not to be the case, we will immediately remedy any issues."

 

I'm biased, because not only do I agree with Aftab politically but I really like him, but this seems like a reasonably believable response. Rookie mistake and they should've been more forthcoming. I just hope it doesn't sink his campaign. Steve Chabot is very bad for Cincinnati.

Is Pureval in more trouble than Chabot?

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/03/rep-steve-chabots-campaign-has-paid-son-in-laws-firm-more-than-150-000-web-consulting/826677001/

 

$150,000 since 2011 is less than $25,000 per year.  Per the article, the services provided include Web site redesigns (3 over that span of years, and I'm not sure whether that's par for the course or not, but for a point of reference, 3 redesigns in 8 years would have been within line of what my old midsized law firm did), maintained the campaign e-mail list (which I'm not sure takes a great deal of work but I'm not sure), and fending off cyberattacks (which again, not sure how involved the guy was, whether he and his company spent a lot of time on this or whether this was basically an inflated fee to install Norton on campaign computers).  Also, it says that it's to the son-in-law's company, not the son, so I don't know if that's for the services of 1 person or 5 or 25.  Guessing closer to 1 just because the man apparently has two companies, one named after himself, which is often the province of a guy just hanging out his own shingle, but still, suppose it were just 2-3 part time people on top of himself.  $25,000 per year doesn't seem outside the realm of reasonableness here, assuming it was a real job and not just a sinecure.

 

The real problem is that the word "consulting" has become so bloated and expansive over the years that that word alone really doesn't tell you squat about what the "consultant" is doing to earn his paycheck.

 

And it would be a pretty far-fetched thing to believe that he did this knowingly. For what? To save $30,000? When he has out raised the incumbent by leaps and bounds? He had tons of money in his federal account when this occurred. There was literally no reason to possibly do this on purpose.

 

On the question of whether the initial act was knowing, I'm willing to give Aftab the benefit of the doubt.  People make dubious assumptions that all public officials have a top-tier campaign finance law compliance staff on retainer at all times.  That's really expensive and it would not at all surprise me if no one told him at the time that this was illegal, and campaign finance laws are Byzantine and I'd agree that it's not something that would be intuitively obvious that certain resources are available for this campaign poll but not that campaign poll.

 

However, if, as has been reported, he was specifically called out on it and lied about it even after having it called it his attention that it was improper, that would reflect differently.  Because then he could have had someone look at this specific act rather than engage in constant and expensive passive monitoring of every campaign act (which is a burden even for presidential campaigns, let alone House ones, let alone local clerk of court ones).

 

Of course, as I think I've made clear in other threads, I tend to think that most campaign finance laws are constitutionally suspect anyway, so I can't say I think any less of Aftab here.  My real position is that the law is wrong, not him.  But assuming that we don't yet have 5 votes to strike such laws down categorically under the First Amendment, I'd still say that Aftab is probably at least telling the truth about not initially knowing that his polling funding was against the law (based on the picayune hairsplitting of the law rather than its Constitutional infirmity).  The later doubling down is the only thing that causes me to raise any eyebrow.

I have done some web design and these fees seem rather outrageous, but you bring up some good points. Would be nice if there were a better local paper to hash this all out. They seem to have dropped the issue with only a partial investigation.

 

I'd still say that Aftab is probably at least telling the truth about not initially knowing that his polling funding was against the law (based on the picayune hairsplitting of the law rather than its Constitutional infirmity).  The later doubling down is the only thing that causes me to raise any eyebrow.

 

Same, except I think campaign finance laws are akin to noise ordinances when it comes to 1A. Overall, I'm willing to give Pureval an amateur's pass for now but I have him on watch.

I honestly don't pretend to have any market experience on what a campaign Web site for a House of Representatives campaign costs.  In fact, I have no idea what my old law firm Web site cost; I was never involved with that budget.  Heck, I've got no idea what UO costs.  But I do say that whenever a newspaper prints a big dollar figure for some cost or expense (or source of income) but then notes that it's over a period of years, people should do the per-year math.

^ The thing is, he appears to be doubling down on the I did nothing wrong despite increasing evidence mounting against him. He seems trying to spin it like it was part of the Clerk campaign instead of just admitting to it. I think his strategy is to deflect until after the election and then admit. 

 

Regardless, a continued cover up will look worse than just coming out and getting in front of it now.

Heh.  Well, again, I'm going to let this one largely slide in my mind even if he did do something illegal, simply because I think the law itself is wrong.

 

Seriously, let's get down to the substance of it.  We're talking about contraband polling.  What next, unauthorized appearances at town halls?  Conspiracy to commit bulk mail?  Aggravated participation in parades?  These are things candidates do and should be able to do without the threat of legal penalties.

 

Disclaimer in case this got buried: I do know Aftab personally from 15 years ago in undergrad, though I haven't spoken to him since graduation and we're obviously in very different quadrants of the political landscape.

Today, with all of the Kavanaugh news, would be the perfect day to come out in front of it. Either today or tomorrow, if he has something to admit.

^ I agree with you completely about the campaign finance rules, but each politician should be skilled enough to follow them and not let them bite them in the butt.

Chabot, Pureval to debate three times in October

 

 

U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Westwood, and Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Aftab Pureval, D-Downtown, have agreed to three televised debates in their contentious 1st Congressional District race, according to their campaigns.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/09/27/chabot-pureval-to-debate-three-times-in-october.html

^ The thing is, he appears to be doubling down on the I did nothing wrong despite increasing evidence mounting against him.

 

This isn't accurate. He said he doesn't think he did anything wrong, but if it is found that he did then he'll take the necessary steps to fix it.

 

 

I don't think I've ever seen Steve Chabot in person. I might have to go to one of these

From Cincinnati.com:

 

"The commission last week voted to investigate the spending. Pureval – after the poll was obtained by The Enquirer – pledged to remedy any issues if they're found, though his campaign insists it has followed all campaign finance rules.

 

Driehaus said those issues must be determined by the Ohio Elections Commission.

 

"I equally question all the spending by Chabot," Driehaus said.

 

Among the issues Driehaus cited; Chabot's visits to 79 countries, which Driehaus called "junkets"; and $45,000 in bonus money Chabot paid staffers and his campaign manager out of federal tax dollars after Chabot lost election in 2008."

 

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/27/steve-driehaus-urges-voters-look-past-dirty-politics/1441671002/

"I don't think I did anything against the rules but I'll fix it if I did" is the right stance for Aftab to take here.  Especially considering that the amount of money in question is paltry compared to what he has on hand, AFAIK, so if he needs to reimburse/reallocate some money to put things back into the right boxes, he probably can.  (Going by what the newspapers say about his campaign war chest, anyway, not any personal review of official filings.)

"I don't think I did anything against the rules but I'll fix it if I did" is the right stance for Aftab to take here.  Especially considering that the amount of money in question is paltry compared to what he has on hand, AFAIK, so if he needs to reimburse/reallocate some money to put things back into the right boxes, he probably can.  (Going by what the newspapers say about his campaign war chest, anyway, not any personal review of official filings.)

 

As of June 30th he had $1.35 million cash on hand for his federal campaign.

https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/columnists/politics-extra/2018/09/27/2018-election-why-cant-aftab-pureval-admit-mistake-and-move/1435408002/

 

Jason Williams taking Aftab to task here.

Thank God he's on the case

Sienna poll on 1st Congressional Race

 

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/10/02/first-public-poll-shows-state-of-chabot-pureval.html

 

 

Thank God he's on the case

 

Is there an inside-Cincinnati joke here?  Does this guy have a reputation of some less-than-sterling variety?

Thank God he's on the case

 

Is there an inside-Cincinnati joke here?  Does this guy have a reputation of some less-than-sterling variety?

 

He's the Enquirer's resident click-bait writer who attacks the streetcar and makes outlandish statements on Cincinnati politics.

CLF’s recent attack on Ohio Democrat Aftab Pureval, for example, accuses the Indian-Tibetan, first-generation American of aiding his former employer in making “millions” by “helping Libyans reduce payments owed to families of Americans killed by Libyan terrorism.”

 

But Pureval wasn’t working for the Washington law firm that reached the restitution agreement when it was initially struck. When he did join the firm, Pureval worked on anti-trust litigation, not payments to the families of victims of the 1988 Lockerbie terrorist attack.

Not mentioned in the ad was the fact that former President George W. Bush backed the settlement negotiation with Libya — and that Rep. Steve Chabot, Pureval’s GOP opponent, did not object when it was approved in the House.

 

Local media called the attack "misleading." And members of one American family who lost their father in the Libyan attack were so outraged by the video that they reached out to donate to Pureval’s campaign.

 

“My response to the CLF ad involved words that are best not repeated here,” Scott Rosen wrote in a letter to Pureval’s campaign. He was 5 years old when his father, Saul Mark Rosen, was killed in the Lockerbie bombing, leaving his mom to raise two children. “The attempt to connect you to the murder of my father was utterly beyond the pale."

 

CLF says the ad has helped Chabot stretch his lead over Pureval, according to its internal polling.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/09/republican-attack-ads-midterms-876287

Edited October 9, 20186 yr by DEPACincy

It is impressive what Aftab has done by making the race semi-competitive, however, given the district is a +10 R from the start, unless there was a major scandal surrounding Chabot it is really never realistic for him to take the seat.  I think ultimately he is hoping for a strong enough showing lose by 3-4 points to help catapult his political star to higher state office or county office. He was rumored to be running for AG the moment he won the Clerk position, but he set his sights on the Congress instead.

I can see him using the exposure he has received from his Congressional run by making a run for County Commission in 2020.

Unless Denise Driehaus or Todd Portune don't run in 2020, I doubt Aftab would run for County Commissioner. They are both up in 2020

What is kind of disappointing is that one of the reasons the SORTA tax and budget gap tax were pulled is because they feared it would bring out too many republicans and thus guarantee Aftab loses.  It's looking like Aftab will lose and there are no increases to cover those budget shortfalls... COAST wins again

There will be a SORTA levy next year and it will pass because it will have GOP support and the support of the Chamber and Business Community behind it.

Former Republican county commissioner blasts Chabot as he endorses Democrat Pureval

 

 

Phil Heimlich, the former longtime Republican officeholder, launched a scathing attack on Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Westwood, on Thursday as he endorsed Democrat Aftab Pureval in the 1st Congressional District race.

 

Heimlich, an attorney who served on the Cincinnati City Council from 1993 to 2001 and served on the Hamilton County Commission from 2003 to 2006, said his breaking point was when Chabot criticized Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Chabot sided with Vladimir Putin, Heimlich said. 

 

“As a former prosecutor, this makes me sick,” Heimlich told reporters outside the Hamilton County Republican headquarters. “I want to be on the right side of history. We are living under the most dishonest president in history.

 

“What is Steve Chabot’s position on that? Nothing. He refuses to speak out against this mountain of dishonesty. Steve is a good man, but he does nothing.”

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/10/11/former-republican-county-commissioner-blasts.html

Pureval rips Chabot for Trump’s comments on Robert E. Lee

 

 

Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Aftab Pureval criticized Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Westwood, on Sunday for not rebuking President Donald Trump for comments the president made about Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee at a Friday rally. 

 

Pureval and Chabot are running for the 1st Congressional District seat, which contains most of Hamilton County and all of Warren County.

 

“Donald Trump came to our community, came to our city, came to our neighborhoods and praised Robert E. Lee, a Confederate general,” Pureval told the crowd at an Avondale church. “Our representative, Steve Chabot, did he call him out? Did he criticize the president for celebrating a man like Lee? No. He praised him. He said a vote for Chabot is a vote for Trump. That’s exactly right. A vote for Chabot is a vote for Trump.”

 

At the Friday rally in Lebanon, Chabot appeared on stage with Trump before the president made his comments about Lee, which was a segue to commentary the president made on U.S. presidents from Ohio, including Ulysses S. Grant and William McKinley.

 

“So Robert E. Lee was a great general and Abraham Lincoln developed a phobia,” Trump said. “He couldn’t beat Robert E. Lee.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/10/14/pureval-rips-chabot-for-trump-s-comments-on-robert.html

^ Aftab's getting desperate. NBC originally tried this angle, before retracting it:

 

NBC issues correction after Trump’s Robert E. Lee comment

https://nypost.com/2018/10/14/trump-says-robert-e-lee-comment-was-actually-a-grant-shoutout/

 

The gall it takes to take Trump out of context and claim he was praising Lee is pretty shocking. I had watched this speech live and Trump was clearly praising Grant, an Ohio native. He did so by pointing out that Lee was a "great general" which is an objective, historical fact. His tactics and strategies had a significant influence on military strategy. Saying someone was a "great general" in no way makes a judgement upon the cause they fought for. Find me a historian that would be willing to argue that Rommel wasn't a great general.

 

I suppose when you're trailing in the polls by 10 points, attacking your opponent by using an out of context, misleading quote uttered by a third party seems like a road that must be taken.

 

On 10/15/2018 at 7:10 PM, Ram23 said:

^ Aftab's getting desperate. NBC originally tried this angle, before retracting it:

 

NBC issues correction after Trump’s Robert E. Lee comment

https://nypost.com/2018/10/14/trump-says-robert-e-lee-comment-was-actually-a-grant-shoutout/

 

The gall it takes to take Trump out of context and claim he was praising Lee is pretty shocking. I had watched this speech live and Trump was clearly praising Grant, an Ohio native. He did so by pointing out that Lee was a "great general" which is an objective, historical fact. His tactics and strategies had a significant influence on military strategy. Saying someone was a "great general" in no way makes a judgement upon the cause they fought for. Find me a historian that would be willing to argue that Rommel wasn't a great general.

 

I suppose when you're trailing in the polls by 10 points, attacking your opponent by using an out of context, misleading quote uttered by a third party seems like a road that must be taken.

 

 

Lee lost in spectacular fashion. I like generals that win. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/05/19/the-truth-about-confederate-gen-robert-e-lee-he-wasnt-very-good-at-his-job/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c9a23385fe4b

It was a pretty pathetic argument on Aftab's part. Politics is what it is though. That was such an easy one to put into context though that it would have been better to leave it alone. It is a minor rookie move by Aftab.

 

This election will be about gaining experience for him. He knows he is unlikely to win, and will be hoping to lose by a smaller margin than expected. It will position him as someone with a future in the party. Similar to what Cranley did when he lost to Chabot in 2000.

Ben and Jerry shot a commercial endorsing Aftab for Congress. In some markets, they even unveiled specialty ice cream flavors for the candidate.  This was a poor decision to get their endorsement since in Aftab's district, Ben and Jerry's is crap compared to the hometown brand.

Pureval, Chabot trade barbs in second debate slugfest

 

If Aftab Pureval somehow upsets Rep.Steve Chabot in the 1st Congressional District race, people might look back at Wednesday night’s debate and say that’s where Pureval started to get his mojo back after weeks of being on defense over campaign finance issues.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/10/25/commentary-pureval-chabot-trade-barbs-in-second.html

 

 

Well then.

His offense to the term lackey reminds me of when Cranley got hysterical that a Qualls ad had a dog peeing on a Cranley yard sign. If you remember, Cranley demanded Qualls apologize for ruining his family's name.

^^ IMO, one of those attacks is not like the other. Aftab worked for a firm that did indeed lobby for Libyan terrorists. The short tidbit is missing context, obviously, but it's not wildly off base. On the other hand, calling someone a "lackey" is just a juvenile insult. It's like calling someone "stupid." There's no basis for that and it comes across as weak. This is a case of a criticism vs. and insult.

 

Also, here's a link you can use to read that story with your Library Card: https://www-bizjournals-com.research.cincinnatilibrary.org/cincinnati/news/2018/10/25/commentary-pureval-chabot-trade-barbs-in-second.html

Just now, Ram23 said:

^^ IMO, one of those attacks is not like the other. Aftab worked for a firm that did indeed lobby for Libyan terrorists. The short tidbit is missing context, obviously, but it's not wildly off base. On the other hand, calling someone a "lackey" is just a juvenile insult. It's like calling someone "stupid." There's no basis for that and it comes across as weak. This is a case of a criticism vs. and insult.

 

1) Pureval was 6 years old at the time of the bombing and never worked on the case.  http://www.wvxu.org/post/commentary-do-purevals-opponents-think-he-was-6-year-old-terrorist#stream/0

 

2) There's no basis for that and comes across as weak?  Gee, where has this criticism from you been of Donald Trump!

Edited October 25, 20186 yr by DarkandStormy

Here's what the latest Chabot, Pureval poll shows

 

U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot continues to hold a sizable lead over his challenger in the 1st Congressional District race, Hamilton County Clerk of Courts Aftab Pureval, with the latest New York Times/Siena College Poll showing Chabot at 50 percent and Pureval at 41 percent among likely voters in the Nov. 6 election. 

 

That’s the same margin for Chabot that the same pollster showed in a Sept. 27-Oct. 1 poll. The most-recent poll was taken Oct. 20 through Oct. 24. 

 

The margin of error on the 492-voter survey was plus-or-minus 4.5 percentage points. That means Chabot’s total could range from 54.5 percent to 45.5 percent, while Pureval’s could range from 46.5 percent to 36.5 percent. But the underlying data supports the poll’s topline result of a clear Chabot lead. 

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/10/26/heres-what-the-latest-chabot-pureval-poll-shows.html

Pureval campaign manager out 6 days before election

 

Democratic congressional candidate Aftab Pureval has accepted the resignation of his campaign manager six days before the election.

 

Sarah Topy, a longtime Pureval friend going back to their days at Ohio State University who also ran his winning 2016 clerk of courts campaign, quit Tuesday night.

 

The Pureval campaign was opaque about the reasons for Topy's resignation.

 

"Our campaign holds itself to the highest standards of professionalism and accountability," Pureval said. "Yesterday I learned new information that led me to believe that members of my staff may not have lived up to that standard. We have dismissed those staff members. I do not want this issue to be a distraction in the final days, and therefore have accepted the resignation of my campaign manager."

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/10/31/pureval-campaign-manager-out-6-days-before.html

At final debate, Chabot says he agrees with Trump, is against birthright citizenship

 

 

In his last debate with Democratic congressional candidate Aftab Purevalbefore Election Day, U.S. Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Westwood, said he agrees with President Donald Trump’s decision to end birthright citizenship in the United States.

 

In an interview released Tuesday, Trump said he would end the practice by executive order, a decision that may not be constitutional because the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

 

Only a two-thirds majority in Congress and a two-thirds majority of state legislatures can repeal or change the Constitution.

 

Chabot said he agrees with Trump and that an executive order likely will be tested in the courts.

 

“I don’t think our founders nor the 14th amendment signers had in mind — what they had in mind, it was right after the Civil War … what they wanted to say was if you were born here, you’re a citizen,” Chabot said, adding that the amendment was meant to clarify the citizenship status of former slaves. The 14th Amendment wasn’t meant to include the children of “people sneaking across the border,” he added.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/10/30/at-final-debate-chabot-says-he-agrees-with-trump.html

"I'm a strict textualist except for in all these cases where I disagree with the founders and signers of a particular amendment" - Republican

Edited October 31, 20186 yr by DarkandStormy

Pureval's scored a few own-goals, but his treatment by the elections commission and courts seems unfair and politically motivated. Either they should've rushed a ruling on the campaign finance issue or they should've held off on everything until after the election. It's not right to trickle things out as the campaign drags on.

The hearing would have been sooner but Aftab tried to delay things with his appeals. He only has himself to blame on that one.

 

This race is over. Aftab has pretty much imploded and he may cause a lot of down ballot statehouse races to go with him.

 

It will be interesting to hear what happens at the hearing today since his campaign manager resigned yesterday and now is really under no obligation to tow the party line and can air a lot of dirty laundry.