By Jim Spencer
SpencerSpeaks.com
September 4, 2007
A controversial $1,000 campaign contribution that a gambling company made in January to Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn arrived back in the company’s offices more than six months later wrapped in a plain piece of paper with a handwritten note that said: “Thank you. But we are unable to accept your check.â€
The note included no signature nor any date, Chuck Brooke, senior vice president for government affairs at International Game Technology, said Tuesday. The envelope in which the note and check came was apparently thrown away.
“We sometimes get checks returned,†said Brooke, whose company, known as IGT, produces gambling equipment. “Usually they come with letters on campaign stationery and are signed by someone.â€
The half-year delay and the mysterious circumstances of the return of the check to IGT merely add to the intrigue in a strange case of Republican in-fighting in
Lamborn, a first-term Representative, has recently been accused of making political threats in telephone messages left for a couple of GOP constituents who criticized him in a letter to the editor of a weekly newspaper.
Among other things, the Aug. 24 letter criticized Lamborn for taking campaign contributions from gambling interests.
Brooke said his company cut a check to Lamborn and several other rookie Republican Congressmen at a fundraiser in January. They did so at the request of House minority leader John Boehner.
“We never talked to Congressman Lamborn,†Brooke said.
On Tuesday, Lamborn sent a letter to the authors of the letter to the editor - Jonathan and Anna Bartha. Lamborn apologized for any misunderstanding caused by his phone messages. He said he returned the IGT check in June after his wife, who handles his mail, found it. Lamborn blamed the delay on a busy schedule and his wife needing to care for her sick mother.
Lamborn’s
“You can ask IGT,†Lamborn’s press secretary, Abby Winter, said.
Brooke could do little more than confirm that “we physically do have the check.†But Brooke’s account conflicts with Lamborn’s. Brooke said he did not include the returned check on his twice yearly report to the Federal Election Commission, which means it came in some time after June 30.
“The secretary who handles the mail thinks it was probably in the past three to four weeks,†Brooke said.
That would put it ahead of publication of the letter to the editor written by the Barthas, but right around the time the couple have told others they wrote their letter. The Barthas are supporters of Jeff Crank, the man who finished a close second to Lamborn in an ugly six-person primary to replace retiring 5th CD Rep. Joel Hefley. Crank has announced he will oppose Lamborn in a 2008 Republican primary.
Lamborn, a social conservative, accused the Barthas of printing lies in their letter. Lamborn said he had returned both campaign contributions he had received from gambling interests.
One of those contributors, Marc Murphy of Bronco Billy’s Casino in
Brooke, meanwhile, had only rudimentary details, but no resolution to Lamborn’s troubles.
Or the GOP’s.
Copyright 2007 by Jim Spencer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
10 users commented in " Gambling Money Comes Back in Plain White Wrapper "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackbackjim,
Lamborne is obviously nuts… But do you really care if he received a contribution from a gambling company? or if other right wing nuts want to frame him for being nuts? The weird thing here is the cover up of a $1000 check..no doubt..
Hillary is going down the same road that her husband and Al Gore went down with Charlie Trie and the Chinese fundraising scandal…
Yes Lamborne is an unsavory character, but why don’t you care about the big picture..it’s not in your DNA?
Rather than “Gambling money ($1000) comes in plain white wrapper”> How about Chinese money comes in U.S. Dollars, but this doesn’t offend you…
“Be sure your sin will find you out.” It’s all about GOP hypocrisy. How they do squirm when they get caught with the proverbial hand in the cookie jar (or under the toilet stall)..
The comments so seem to defend the concribution. Why is it that when someting unsavory happens to the right wing its either to ignor it or the big excuse “Clinton Did It”
it’s not about “Clinton did it”. It’s about Jim making a ‘mountain out of a mole hill’ and not giving a rat’s you know what about big picture. If a Republican slips up, and I am not defender of Lamborne (in fact I think he’s a freak), Jim is all over them. I have never seen him once criticize a Democrat no matter the level of scoundrel that they may be. Hillary has been taking dirty money through straw donors similar to her husband and Al Gore. This is a much bigger story than an attack (which is what Jim takes pleasure in) on the religious right. I was pointing out how mediocre that his outrage is and how short sided that he oftentimes seems to be. Although I cruise the site for a reason and enjoy reading his opinions.
If memory serves me correctly, Goliath was slain one stone at a time. Go David!
But who is the David????? Wildflower, don’t you care either?
Think about it…Somebody claiming that they didn’t receive a LEGAL donation for $1500 (as unsavory a character that Lamborne may be) or receiving multi millions of dollars over a 15 year period from a foreign government through straw donors…… Because there is big D by the name, you don’t care and Jim doesn’t for that matter or he would write about it. because it’s all about ideology………The fruit is rotten from all sides and I am here to tell you about it.
Below is the first of a four part series that has links to the remaing parts that discusses other problems with Lamborn’s past, including his voting on a law limiting parental responsbility in Colorado for crimes and torts committed by their minor children. Lamborn’s minor son was an arsonist. He caused approximately $130,000 in damages. Lamborn was found liable by the court to pay $3,000 and Lamborn tried to avoid payment, and was hauled before the court and forced to pay. Lamborn didn’t disclose to the Colorado state legislature while he was voting on the bill that involved parents obligations for damages caused by their minor children that he was himself the subject of a court order to make restitution. He said later he was not required to do so because the bill he was voting on didn’t affect the past crimes his son had committed as an arsonist–but, it did, however, affect Lamborn’s parental responsibility on any future crimes his son committed while a minor. If his son did commit any more arsons, that’s unknown. Lamborn learned his lesson the first time to pay up instead of getting sued by an arson victim who demanded payment Lamborn didn’t want to pay.
http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3140
I am no fan of Lamborn, yet even Jim would be opposed to treaing his son as an adult.
Leave A Reply