I yield on this point. None of it makes any sense.

At any rate, the math on this makes one’s head expload. Indeed her contributions and expenditures would be higher because of the replacement checks and refunds. Yes she reported the correction in the contributions in this period. But there is no way to be sure they actually refunded and collected new checks the way it is reported.

Why couldn’t she have just done things correctly in the first place? It isn’t like this is the first time she has run for office.

Again, you are correct that DIna did post negative contributions. The problem is that this is not the way to report returned contributions. A returned contribution needs to be clearly indicated in the expenditures as a returned contribuion “RFD.” While reporting a negative contribution shows the same thing, I do not believe it is the correct way of doing things. Also, The amended return changed the reported origninal contribution dates to fall within the legal period. If that is the case, then why would they need to refund?

You are correct on the loan, I read from the wrong line on that one. I have amended the original post on that matter.

However, on the contribution piece, I am correct.

In the previous amended report Dina reported $75,800 in contributions for the period. In this report period she reports $39,039 in contributions. That adds up to $114,849 in contributions. Her report states $114,349 in contributions. There is your $500 difference.

In her amendments from the first reporting period, it appears that all she did was change the reported received dates for the contributions that were received before her declaration date. The problem is that since this problem was not discovered until after she filed the initial return and therefore after the reporting period closed, how could she have returned checks and gotten new ones, after the fact?

Smells fishy to me. The only way to correct the error would be to have refund checks issued from the campaign. (sometime after March 22nd) and then collect new checks for the most recent period. That simply did not happen.