Monkey Business Report: NCGOP Building Fund edition

A building fund, for most organizations, consists of money set aside for the upkeep of brick-and-mortar structures owned and / or controlled by said organizations.

That’s what makes some expenditures on the NCGOP Building Fund’s mid-year 2017 disclosure report provoke a few questions.

First, we have a payment to “Hayes for Chairman.” ¬†FROM THE BUILDING FUND. (Click on images to enlarge.)

That’s a payment of $750 to the reelection campaign of party chairman Robin Hayes roughly one week after his defeat of challenger Jim Womack. FROM THE BUILDING FUND. WITH NO NOTES OR EXPLANATION.

Next, we have “fundraising fees” paid out to a private contractor. ¬†FROM THE BUILDING FUND.

Another peculiar payment we found FROM THE BUILDING FUND was “reimbursement for ceiling tiles” to the state party’s accounting director.

That’s nearly $2500 to the party’s accounting director for “ceiling tile.”

It looks a little unusual, but — hey — at least it’s got something to do with the actual building.

4 thoughts on “Monkey Business Report: NCGOP Building Fund edition

  1. The other thing about the building fund if I remember correctly is it can take unlimited donations

  2. A party or campaign official buying something, like ceiling tiles in this case, and then getting reimbursed for it happens in political reports. It is a little sloppy way to do things, but sometimes it needs to be done that way for various legitimate reasons.

    Fundraising is done for the building fund, too, so that would be a legitimate expense.

    What is extremely odd is the payment to the reelection campaign of Hayes, but this is the same ED who misspent gobs of party money on a “shareholder report” that was a very thinly disguised campaign mailing for Hayes chairmans campaign. It was a slick and expensive booklet and mailed to all delegates and alternates. Hayes campaign should have had to reimburse the party for that misuse of party funds.

    1. I agree the ceiling tiles is likely legit….the contractor payment may have been mis-coded by the accountant or the description is wrong but is still fishy just like the Hayes payment.

Comments are closed.