TPMDC

Party-Switcher Griffith To Refund-Seekers: 2008 Money Is Gone

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Rep. Parker Griffith (R-AL)

Read More

Parker Griffith

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Rep. Parker Griffith (R-AL), who switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP in December, appears to be modifying his promise to return donations from Democrats who are unhappy with his switch. He is now including only money raised for this cycle, the Huntsville Times reports -- the cash spent to elect him as a Democrat a little over a year ago is gone.

Griffith is not required under the law to return any donations, but some form of refund is often made by politicians who switch parties. The Times points out that Griffith had made an offer to return money to any donor or to the national Democratic Party, upon a request being submitted in writing. However, refund-seekers are now being answered with a form letter telling them that the money spent in 2008 is gone, and will not be given back. Only money donated within the 2010 cycle will be returned.

So is Griffith reneging on a promise, or was there a misunderstanding and he wasn't actually referring to 2008 money? "It wasn't specifically asked about the 2008 election, but about ANY contributions made to him as a Democratic candidate for Congress," said Huntsville Times reporter Patricia McCarter -- who was there when the comment was made -- in an e-mail to TPMDC. "He didn't announce the '2008 election' qualifier until a week or two afterwards."

At the time of the offer, the Times noted out that in the very close open-seat race in 2008, Griffith's supporters and the national Democratic Party had spent a total of $1.8 million to elect Griffith. His cash on hand at the time of the party switch was $600,000.

Comments (12) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 15, 2010 7:19 PM   

We "wan" we money back!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 8:53 PM   

OK, I'm a bit confused here. If you donate money to an election fund, you want to see it used to get the person in question elected, yes?

So...Why would you expect it to still be sitting around two years after the man is elected?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 16, 2010 1:30 PM    in reply to Kuyleh

You do realize Nov 4, 2008 was not two years ago, right? We're barely 16 days into 2010!!! He's a fraud. Was scared to run as a Republican in 2008. Now that the Tea Party has hijacked the entire Southern United States, he's just trying to keep his job.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 16, 2010 3:08 PM    in reply to UncleMoney

OK, so I stretched the time a bit. Doesn't change my point. If they gave the money to his election fund, why would they be expecting it to still be sitting there now?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 16, 2010 3:08 PM    in reply to Kuyleh

Edit: Let me make this clear. I'm not saying this in defense of the man. I'm merely shaking my head at the way his donors think.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 16, 2010 4:41 PM    in reply to Kuyleh

The money raised during the '08 is what got him elected. Democrats donated to this fraud, and he switched parties. He knew he was a Republican then. He's voted against every Democratic Party agenda item. He knew the Republican brand was tainted in '08, and perpetrated a fraud upon his district. The deal is two years. Not a year and a month. He'll get tea bagged in a primary, and be unemployed in 2010!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

June 2, 2010 12:33 PM    in reply to UncleMoney

Just as i predicted...Dumb Ass Parker Griffith will now go HOME. He turned on Dems a year and a month in, Republicans didn't trust him...and June 1, 2010 bit him in the ARSE!!! See ya, wouldn't wanna be ya!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 17, 2010 6:58 PM    in reply to Kuyleh

The more accurate analogy would be if your purchased a Picasso for 1.9 million only to find out 2 years later it's a fake. Yes, "buyer be ware" is an apt adage but so is "give me my money back you fraud".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 9:19 PM   

This guy's a turd muffin

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 15, 2010 10:44 PM   

The man is a crook.
He collected money from widows and orphans, saying he would do work for them and he now has absconded on his promise, taking the money intended for a cause that he never had any intention on delivering on.
Or the lawyer who takes his retainer, and sleeps at trial or makes a plea in order to avoid doing any real work in behalf of his clients

He's no different than the guy who say's put your money in this fund and tells you it is low risk and it’s good for your future retirement, then the greedy crook changes his mind moving the money into a high risk fund because HIS pockets are better served. As he's used you’re hard earned money to wine and dine and buy into a new position.

Shouldn’t he have asked his fund contributors first, and given them the opportunity to remove the money?

He made an agreement; he identified himself as a Democrat, a representative of those with Democrat Values.
The man is full of deception.

Had you known he was going to change his mind, you would have never given him the opportunity to invest for your future.
.
Now you’re left trying to recover and find another representative to serve your needs. You groomed him, you invested time an money.
At the time when the opportunity for examining a life commitment and he vied for your business, he won your confidence, essentially driving away other competitors who have now moved on.
Leaving you to scramble and beg someone else to fill the void.; as the crook smiles smugly, who can you run against me now, as the other better, best are gone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 16, 2010 7:35 AM   

Hmmm... Blue Dog Parker Griffith switches parties and Red-rovers it over to the Republican side. Go figure.

When will we ever accept the fact that the Blue Dogs are just Republicans in donkey suits? How far-fetched would it be to consider that Republicans have been running under the Democratic ticket in order to swing the balance of power in their favor, knowing at the outset that they were going to lose control of the Presidency and the Congress? Sounds like your average, everyday, Republican political strategy to me. Liberals have got to stop being so gullible.

Something to think about in the months leading up to the 2010 election: Pin the tail on the donkey, not the elephant... the donkey...

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

January 16, 2010 1:30 PM   

Griffith had roughly $57,000 cash on hand left after the 2008 election. That was obviously money contributed while he was under the Democratic banner. The honorable thing to do (not that I really expect honor from him) is to make refunds of 2008 contributions as requested up to that amount, plus any and all requested refunds of 2009 contributions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on