Christine O’Donnell’s Questionable Campaign Finance Expenditures

While many people, myself included, have generated a few chuckles over the 1990s-era video that has come to light since Tuesday detailing Christine O’Donnell’s position on issues ranging from masturbation to human-mice hybrid cloning to Creationism, there is a far more serious issue out there that the O’Donnell campaign would do well to address immediately, assuming that it can.

It deals with questions regarding O’Donnell’s use of campaign funds for personal expenses during the many quixotic campaigns she ran before finally beating Mike Castle on Tuesday.  Last night’s AC 360 did a fairly good job of summarizing what the questions are:

As I noted the other day, the Delaware GOP has already filed an FEC Complaint against O’Donnell. Now as mentioned at the end of the report, it appears that a third party is filing their own complaint. As I said, O’Donnell would do well to answer these allegations immediately, and completely,

FILED UNDER: 2010 Election, US Politics, , , , , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug Mataconis held a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020. He passed far too young in July 2021.


  1. Michael says:

    How about OTB’s questionable political POV?

  2. Yes Michael, because ignoring potential violations of the law is the “conservative” position.


  3. MIkeinSA says:

    Nothing like we conservatives eating our young BEFORE THE ELECTION!!!!!

  4. Thomas says:

    Yeah, because calling out deceptive and illegal campaign activity is “questionable.”

  5. wr says:

    Are there any Tea Party candidates who aren’t cheap crooks or grifters?

  6. sam says:


    How about OTB’s questionable political POV?

    This is coming up over and over. If the site is giving you guys such heartburn, why don’t you take your custom elsewhere? Someplace where you don’t have to post a bitch every few days.

  7. Juneau: says:

    I knew it was you who wrote this , Mataconis, before I even clicked on the link… just because of the title.  Dude.  Get a life.

  8. Juneau: says:

    @ Mataconis
    Yes Michael, because ignoring potential violations of the law is the “conservative” position.

    Oh.  So maybe you can link me to your articles about Dodd, Rangel, Waters, and the host of other Dems who have been accused and are currently under investigation for ethics and finance violations?

    You and everyone else has every right to get answers to legitimate questions about O’Donnell.  But with you, the questions are only highlighted if it is a Republican.  As a “moderate Republican” you’re an imposter.  As a “moderator” you’re  a joke.   Somehow, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t really practice law anymore, if you ever actually did.

  9. sam says:

    Bitch, bitch, bitch.

  10. Juneau,

    There are several Rangel posts just in the month of August, and one of Maxine Waters. All there for your reading pleasure.

  11. sam says:

    Let’s see, for example
    And then there was the post just the other day about Eleanor Holmes Norton that you yourself commented on.
    You have a short-term memory problem, kid?

  12. sam says:

    Ah, here we are:
    And here you are:

    Juneau: says:
    Thursday, September 16, 2010 at 19:04

    What’s wrong Tano and sam? Your usual grasp of the regulatory statutes involved in an issue suddenly and mysteriously dessert you? The very fact that this woman mentions her prominent position, and that her decisions are influential in the industry she is soliciting a “donation” from, constitutes a clear breach of legal restrictions which are in place exactly to prohibit this type of activity.

  13. Juneau: says:

    @ sam
    Bitch, bitch,bitch
    With good and substantiated reason.  And your links support my point, thank you.  Two stories about Rangel huh?  The first link you provide for a story on Rangel is from all the way back in July (I’m sorry, did his ethics trial end back then or something?), and the second one has nothing to do with his ethics situation at all – it relates to his long-winded speech and how embarrassing that was for democrats.  But that counts as writing about the “questionable” behavior he has exhibited?   Give me a break.
    Your second link from just a few days ago?  Uhhhh, quick reality check for you sam.  When Mataconis writes in defense of the democrat, without even having all of the facts, that doesn’t really count as a quid pro quo for comparative and impartial writing;
    The truth, of course, is that Norton is doing anything that any other politician or candidate for office hasn’t done.

    Comparative, from the article above:
    there is a far more serious issue out there that the O’Donnell campaign would do well to address immediately, assuming that it can.

    So –   regarding influential dem soliciting contribution from the industry she regulates as a chairperson  – no big deal even though its on tape.
    Regarding unspecified accusations lodged against a candidate by a losing political party and an unknown “third party? ”    Doug says;  “I won’t draw conclusions abut the merits of the complaints”

    Damn right, bitch, bitch bitch.

    @ Mataconis
    There are several Rangel posts just in the month of August, and one of Maxine Waters. All there for your reading pleasure.

    Ohhhh, I see.  Three whole articles over 3 months about sitting members of Congress who have been in power for years and years.  And you have eight articles in about a week and a half on lil’ ol’ Christine O’Donnell, who isn’t even elected yet.    Not to mention the fact that much of what you write about concerns itself with her purely personal beliefs and has nothing to do with her political positions.  This is not political commentary, it’s selective sniping because of some personal dislike you have of O’Donnell and what you perceive she stands for.  And you know it.

    So,  yes.  Bitch,bitch,bitch.

  14. sam says:

    bitty bitch, bitch, bitch, whine, whine, whine.

  15. Vince says:

    OMG $2.84 at Staples! How dare she.

  16. Juneau: says:

    @ sam
    Actually… that’s what you folks are doing the most. I’m simply pointing out the abundance of it – in case you didn’t notice.  I guess that instead of analysis and comparison of ideas, life among the slop buckets suits you well?
    Pssst! Hey did you catch my reply to your snark abut O’Donnell and the mice-brain?  You know, the one where I provided a citation for Stanford University stating that for the first time they hade to give serious thought to when their mouse actually quit being a chimera and started being a “human?”  I guess O’Donnell has some academic company in here concerns and considerations, eh?  I’ll provide the link to you again in case you missed it:

    March 6, 2005
    Stanford Prof Plans Mouse With Human Brain Cells
    So Stanford asked where it should draw the line. It is the first university in the nation to tackle the philosophical question: When does a chimera stop being an animal and start becoming a person, suggesting that research should end?
    Maybe Mataconis can send the Prof at Stanford an email about what a good chuckle he gets out of these types of thoughts, like he mentions in the article above … show how smart and sophisticated he is.
    Don’t be such a quasi-intellectual sam.  You’re not quite the old-man-on-the-mountain you think you are.

  17. Anon says:

    There’s a difference between raising some legitimate ethical concerns, and claiming that there are mice with fully functioning human brains.

  18. Juneau: says:

    @ Anon
    claiming that there are mice with fully functioning human brains.

    So, do you think that she was literally claiming there was a mouse in some lab somewhere carting around a grapefruit-sized noggin on top of its body with a human brain in it?  Really?  Or do you think perhaps there might just be a bare smidgen of a chance she intended to phrase her point in a slightly different and more accurate way, such as “fully functioning human level brains?”   Which is a completely accurate asesssment.

    The conversation where she is quoted is related to the idea of how far we should go towards human cloning, and her objection to the end goal of this type of research.  The first (grapefruit) idea is patently absurd and impossible in any context.  But of course the political party of “Guam is going to tip over” wants to treat O’Donnell as if  she is so stupid she doesn’t know this.

    She must be an ignorant reactionary – after all, she is a conservative.   Right?  If she actually wins in Delaware – which admittedly would be like hitting the tri-fecta – I’m going to be riding the Progs here on OTB for a long, long, time.   There’s nothing quite like personal ad hominem attacks masquerading as intellectual observation.  OTB specializes in this.

  19. anjin-san says:

    Juneau: do you every stop crying? Go start your own blog and you can whine 24/7. I am sure you will have plenty of readers, a persecution complex seems to be a requirement to be a tea party type…

  20. anjin-san says:

    >  “fully functioning human level brains?”   Which is a completely accurate asesssment.

    Well, it has been a few years since I neurobiology classes, but as far as I can tell, your statement is pretty much meaningless babble. Perhaps you could expound on a little actual science to support this “completely accurate asesssment”. “Human Level Brain” is an AI concept, but if you want to claim any scientific meaning for it in research done with mice, please support your contention.

  21. Juneau: says:

    @ anjin
    See my links on Mataconis’ previous post abut this.  There are two citations which relate to others using this type of terminology to refer to the experiments.  Specifically the tern “human level” intelligence.  Again, the point here is that the article is speaking relatively, not literally, i.e the mouse developed the relative intelligence of a human. by injecting human brain cells into the mouse brain.   As any sane person who has a modicum of common sense would realize – O’Donnell was not speaking literally.  She was however, using the same terminology as at least one of the articles I researched.

  22. anjin-san says:

    > See my links on Mataconis’ previous post abut this
    Why are the links even releveant?  “human level intelligence” is not what she said, it is something you made up to try and explain what she said, since her actual words sound, at best, like someone who does not know what they are talking about professing to actually understand something about a fairly complex topic. Given her history of nutty statements, I am not inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. This is what she said:,2933,311946,00.html
    O’DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.

    If she misspoke, she should just come out and admit it? Your spin is not very compelling.
    Mice brains aside, when you look at all the bizarre things this woman has been into, it is pretty amazing that she is a major party candidate for a significant office.  I am perfectly happy to point out when a Democratic party candidate is s stiff, a hack or a fruit loop. Why is it so hard for you to do the same?

  23. anjin-san says:

    Yet another rant ‘n run from Juneau…

  24. anjin-san says:

    > As any sane person who has a modicum of common sense would realize – O’Donnell was not speaking literally.

    Really? Any sane person would realize that Sarah Palin was babbling incoherently in her famous Katie Couric interview. Yet the right continues with the fiction that is was somehow all Couric’s fault…

  25. anjin-san says:

    I wonder what the hyper intelligent mice fantasize about when they are doing a little self-stimulation…