
Getting money from people is fun. Filling out disclosure forms about those people is a pain.
It’s also a legal necessity, meant to keep things transparent. Political candidates must submit donor disclosure forms, which list donors’ names, addresses and occupations, every few months during the early months of the campaign, and as frequently as every 24 hours closer to election day. More than 900 people have donated $100 or more to the seven candidates for Humboldt County supervisor, and the candidates have filled in the blanks on all of them. Or wait — make that, most of them.
First District County Supervisor candidate Rex Bohn’s donor disclosure form for the January to March filing period is missing occupations for more than 60 donors, who collectively donated about $14,000 to his campaign. That violates California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) rules, which state that occupation must be noted. Furthermore, most of the donations without occupations date back two months or more, with some as old as nine months. According to the FPPC, donations that go unoccupied for more than 60 days must be returned.
Is that election fraud? Is this RexBohngate? The maximum fine for each violation is $5,000, and the candidate must give the money back, said FPPC spokesperson Tara Stock. Will Bohn soon be out $314,000?
Unlikely, says FPPC chief of enforcement Gary Winuk. “It isn’t enforced too much.” He said that in an investigation, the FPPC tries to determine whether the omission was intentional, whether it was an oversight, or whether it was due to a lack of political sophistication. “In general, if people admit their mistake and fix it, we just send them a warning,” said Winuk.
Most investigations begin with a complaint from a political opponent, Winuk said. The FPPC has not received any complaints about the Bohn filings.
Bohn sounded surprised when asked about the missing occupations. “I saw them. … I didn’t see any blanks for the occupation,” he said doubtfully. “Gimme some names.”
“Harry Turner?”
“Harry’s retired,” Bohn said.
“Paul Barielles?”
“Paul’s an attorney,” Bohn replied. “He and I went to St. Bernard’s together.”
“Ramona Lima?”
“Owns Lima’s Pharmacy,” he said.
This continued for 20 or so names, with Bohn remembering every donor’s place of employment.
What happened, said Bohn’s financial guru John Fullerton, was that the volunteers tasked with filling out the donation forms didn’t realize the importance of noting occupations. “I got all the reports on the morning that the report was due. And, it was also during tax season, and I’m a CPA,” Fullerton said. He noticed the error, but figured that it would be better to get the forms in on time without the occupations than to turn them in late. Fullerton said he would consult with the FPPC to see what steps the Bohn campaign should take to make things right.
Over in the 3rd District, the occupation section of both the Brooks and Lovelace donor disclosure forms contained some oddities.
Brooks listed a dozen or so donors’ occupation as “none.” Among them were George Schmidbauer, widely known as the founder of Schmidbauer Lumber Inc., and Jim Pell, who, like Brooks, is a former state assembly candidate. (Pell and Brooks were defeated by Wes Chesbro, in 2008 and 2010 respectively.)
Both Schmidbauer and Pell are retired. Why, then, list their occupation as “none”? Semantics, said Brooks. “When they’re not working, if they don’t have an occupation, that would be, “none,” she said. “You either have a job or you don’t.”
She turned the subject to her opponent, Mark Lovelace. “Mark’s report is riddled with errors,” she said. Lovelace just wrote, “requested,” for some donors’ occupations, and at least one dated back to March 30 — exactly 60 days ago. “Technically, he should return those contributions,” Brooks said.
Lovelace, reached by phone at a conference in Sacramento, said that many of his donations came through his website, and didn’t have personal information attached. “We’ve been trying to chase down the rest,” Lovelace said. “It’s not like there’s any donations that are anonymous or anything like that,” he continued. “In this community, I think the names are pretty clear.”
This article appears in Choo-choo Fantasies.

Excellent piece.
Blatent smear piece. You should be embarressed. Is that really the worst you could come up with and went with it anyway?
The new masthead should be the North Coast Enquirer.
Shame on you.
Is the Journal trying a smear piece with no meat? Fullerton amends this and all is good. There was nothing hidden here. Just where is the Journal’s integrity? Gone.
Smear? Not sure why this is being stated as Bohn comes out looking good since he clearly knows who each person on his list is. If anyone looks bad its Lovelace as he clearly doesn’t have a clue as to who is giving donations. Kind of seems like there are some paranoid people waiting to deny dirt on Bohn out there.
I’d be interested in knowing how many of these politicians received donations from “wood cutters,” “self-employed carpenters,” etc.
Gary Winuk, the FPPC Chief of Enforcement, put it succinctly. Fines are not enforced as long as it was not intentional and just an oversight.
Much to do over nothing here. The campaign volunteers have been overwhelmed by the number of enthusiastic donors. At last count we are over 800 people.
“Like slow food, slow journalism is nurtured along, given some time, given some thought. Slow journalists seek out the highest quality ingredients — facts, not spin —….”
Youbetcha, lotsa slow nurturing and thought in this article. Seems like all the thought went into figuring out just how to best spin the minimal and inconsequential facts into maximum spin.
Bias at the NCJ, nah, just a political agenda to be achieved at any ethical cost. I suppose it’s not bias if there is a deliberate intent to mislead.
So did Seidner report the value of the ads placed for months on the Humboldt Herald? Certainly value over $100, juist can not wait for the name address and employer on that one. Bet it was not reported, nor would the Journal report anytning like that about one of “their” candidates.
Excellent reporting. Thank you.
Yes, Excellent biased hack job.
Listing Bohn’s omissions, which, again, will be corrected, with multiple paragraphs and the hint of scandal “RexBohngate?” (really?),
while framing Loveless’s similar omissions in an innocent vein (which they are of course, but so are Bohn’s), yeah, that’s not biased.
Of course, as Carrie says, you guys aren’t stenographers; but as we have all seen, you aren’t journalists either, your biased advocacy hacks.
Looks to me like you are just reporting the facts. Don’t let anonymous commenters or political operatives get to you. Just keep up the good work.
I have to wonder, what other laws will Rex Bohn consider to be optional or unimportant if he becomes a county supervisor? Just those that benefit him or his campaign? Or just his friends? Or donors? Or will every law be subject to this kind of dismissive response if King Bohn gets into office?
how about “King” Lovelace?
See ABR, that’s how ludicrous this is. They, as the fppc has already stated are fill in the bank omissions which can be corrected with amended filings, which John Fullerton is doing, as well as, I’m sure, Mark’s campaign.
“Don’t let anonymous commenters or political operatives get to you.” Exactly, don’t let vitrolic anons like ABR spewing “king bohn” nonsense get to you.
How exactly is it a “dismissive response” when the campaign is correcting the filing?
Those who accuse the NCJ of biased reporting obvious get their daily news from Fox News
Who knew….that foxnews is biased therefore somehow excludes the north coast journal from the possibility of being biased themselves…
Fascinating.
Actually JJ, bias is bias, be it from Foxnews, msnbc, or yes, the NCJ. That you can only reply with insults towards those you dont agree with shows you have no reasonable reply and choose to deflect back towards this lame attempt at an october surprise.
The largest FPPC fine I could find for this same sort of violation has been…are you ready?
$808,000
Google it. Time to go to the well, boys.
Uh, Duh:
“Rex” MEANS “King”
Doh.
The rules are for other people – not Rex or his friends. That’s how the good ole boys roll around here.
If that’s how you want the County to be managed, vote for Rex and Estelle and Karen. Maybe you can be one of the good ole boys someday!
John Fullerton can’t get the same old election reports properly filled out? Are you kidding?
Of course Bohn can rattle-off the deep pocket developer-donor’s occupations, so can Fullerton, so can many who have lived here a generation and longer.
Lovelace’s neglect of some on-line donors is also a violation, proving that this report is balanced.
It’s up to readers to determine where the fatter, uglier scandal resides.