From Sunday's Express Times: "In the end, though, this prosecution is about fair elections, and that is why we should pay attention. One of the hallmarks of our election reporting laws is that we get to see, in standardized public filings, who's paying what to whom in a campaign, and who the big contributors are. And in the case of advertising, which candidate or party or special-interest group is behind the message. That's particularly important when it comes to attack ads. "
Today's one-liner: "The shortest way to the distinguishing excellence of any writer is through his hostile critics." Richard LeGallienne
Local Government TV
▼
Monday, July 20, 2009
11 comments:
You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.
Hooray for the Express Times! Good for them! Where's the Morning Call in this?
ReplyDeleteSo they approve of clear campaign finance reports, the very reports O'Hater and the other kooks on here use to crucify people.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Angle can run a campaign article against my opponent off the books, that I can say i had nothing to do with.
Let me get this straight. It is OK to file deceptive campaign finance reports bc people like me will criticvize a candidate who files a truthful one.
ReplyDeleteDo you realize you're disgusting?
Who wrote that?
ReplyDeleteA Long Dem, who even goes so far as to claim that Angle's campaign ad for Stoffa was off the books. In truth, Angle filed an independent expenditure report and even took responsibility for it when it was published.
ReplyDeleteNo grand jury has subpoenaed him.
So according to LongDem 2:24. It's a conspiracy....the voters, the newspapers and the prosecutors in the Attorney General's office are all in kahoots against the LongDems. I'd like to ask what common gain they would all have in their actions? other than exposing and convicting criminals?
ReplyDeleteThat's the difference between the Longdems and Angle. Angle messes with people legally and out in the open. He signs his name to his ads, the lets people videotape him saying things others wouldn't say anonymously...the Longdems do their dirty work in the dark, illegally, and anonymously. The irony is that Angle wins his battles and the Longdems only serve to help themselves in their slow implosion.
ReplyDeleteTHe MC is about two years away from becoming a postcard with regurgitated national news from Chicago. Good for the ET for covering this.
ReplyDeleteHurrah to all of our friends who helped to bring this before the AG. It is a big step towrd clean open government in Northamoton County
ReplyDeleteBernie, if anyone on County Council, I'm not naming names (Lamont McClure) were convicted of what is suspected, do they have to resign their position, or is it voluntary? Also, would they serve in the County Prison or a federal prison?
ReplyDeleteI'm not exactly sure how this works. I know the HRC is trumped by the state constitution. Section 7 provides that "No person hereafter convicted of embezzlement of public moneys, bribery, perjury or other infamous crime, shall be eligible to the General Assembly, or capable of holding any office of trust or profit in this Commonwealth." Thus, the question is whether participating in a conspiracy to deceive the public about campaign expenditures is an infamous crime. I would argue that it is bc it involves dishonesty.
ReplyDelete