“This was a loan, not a gift, and was thoroughly documented. Although the loan was not earmarked for any particular purpose, I understood that Matt might use all or a portion of the loan proceeds to help with his mayoral campaign”Are you kidding me? So it would've been no problem if Kelty would've flown to Vegas and dropped the $148K on baccarat? He knew EXACTLY why Kelty wanted the money and he gave it to him FOR THAT PURPOSE. So why do these semantic games matter? Remember, the campaign finance laws state
(1) The donation is made for the purpose of influencing any of the following:By saying it wasn't earmarked for the campaign they are going to try and claim that they didn't violate the law. Sorry Fred, we're not stupid.
(A) The nomination or election to office of a candidate.
(B) The election of delegates to a state constitutional convention.
(C) The outcome of a public question.
I think the Kelty campaign should admit this was a mistake and move on from there. Kelty kind of did that in his WOWO interview this morning but Rost certainly isn't helping him out. Just for the record, I personally don't think this should end his candidacy...