Friday, November 10, 2006

Some good points

Some interesting questions raised by Leo Sears in this article Caring about our community.
In 2004 the media reported that the FPPC “has confirmed the receipt of a complaint from Humboldt County Elections Officer Lindsey McWilliams.” And quoted him as saying: “The California Government Code requires income and expenditures of more than $100 to be itemized ... the league did not do that.” Will McWilliams file complaints against HBC and CREG? What about the media that said, “Voters have a right to know where the money is coming from to support or defeat a candidate or an initiative” and HTL's “deliberate obfuscation shows either ignorance of or contempt for campaign disclosure laws.” Does media consternation over transparency apply only to HTL?

Apprently so, Leo - HTL and some people wearing Marina Center sweatshirts on election day. I'm betting Lindsey didn't file any complaints against the so-called Alliance for Ethical Business either.

RELATED STORIES:
ER - CREG WILL NOT DISCLOSE CONTRIBUTORS

20 comments:

  1. I don't remember the FPPC taking action about the complaint.Correct me if I'm wrong.It could be that Lyndsey learned a lesson.I liked Leo's article and how he tied both CREG and the HBC together.It was a good nonpartisan article that raised a good question.
    To clarify though,the complaints about the marina center crowd came from voters not him,and complaints from the voters go to the Sec of State(I believe).The only reason he had to get involved is because Carolyn received phone calls from citizens,so Lyndsey had to notify the poll workers to ask them(the marina center folks) to watch their P's and Q's.Another thankless job for them.I didn't see anything at my precinct,and I hope if more people step forward with complaints,they aren't doing it maliciously,because the whole thing was a mess for those poll workers and the elections department.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unless I missed it, what precisely have HBC and CREG done that consisted of campaigning? The HBC poll? The CREG forum? Seems a stretch in both cases, unless there are other activities I don't know about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. HBC took out ads directly advocating the Bass-Wolford-Leonard-Jones slate. CREG didn't take out any direct ads that I know of, but the "Eureka Civic Association" did.

    ReplyDelete
  4. what does Mark, or mresquan do for a living? is he a political consultant?

    ReplyDelete
  5. 8:36 Stick to the topic don't attack a poster.

    I would like some clarification on FPPC violations, who files the complaints and where, how much 'evidence' is required...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bass-Wolford-Leonard-Jones slate? Puh-lease.

    They didn't have a slate.

    We all know who had a slate, who advertised as a slate, who realized this was perhaps a bad plan and distanced themselves publicly from The Slate, and how media (blogs included) grabbed hold of the whole thing and created an Incumbent Slate vs. Poor Progressives Just Trying To Be Included Gosh These Poor Guys They Had to Have A Slate campaign issue. All of this, utterly clouding facts, voting records, personal resumes, and assuming for the public that all council (and concil to mayor) incumbents had a single agenda, which is rather removed from the truth. That a city council agrees on an issue after they research, debate, and vote upon it is not the same as a single agenda.

    I know it's after the fact but let's not rewrite history and further shift the whole show into the dustbin, k?

    I won't even get too far into the utter garbage that is "the incumbents are right wing and the little engine of liberalism has been kicked down the hill once again" line of BS. Yes, these poor intimidated souls must have been utterly tewwified to see someone wearing a....GASP.... sweatshirt! Run! Flee for your lives!! The Jackbooted Thugs have control of our election process. (cue weeping, rending of clothing and beating of breasts, and looking around to see if it's working before continuing)

    I'm a born, bred, voting record certified progressive liberal and I see right through the divisive NONprogressive behavior put out there by the "dream" team and I can't stand to see it perpetuated, even after the polls close. That there's a new issue about which to dither shocks no one, that it's the people in sweatshirts issue shows them for the bullshit artists they truly are.

    ReplyDelete
  7. but maybe I should stop holding my frustrations in and tell you how I really feel.... ; )

    ReplyDelete
  8. Whoa, Nellie!

    OK, fair enough. They didn't define themselves as a slate. Other people defined them as a slate, though. For example, the HBC.

    They're all different people though, that's true. They've got different backgrounds, different world views. That's all true. But they have voted alike on big issues. Want to run through the City Council's 4-1 votes over the last founr years?

    ReplyDelete
  9. You can say the same about any governing body, Hank - look at the Board of Supervisors - once they have hashed through an item, they generally all vote similarly. Occassionally one stands out. Nevertheless they are all very independent and have very stron opinions in contrast to each other.

    It was classic Salzman to link the incumbents as a slate, and he had David Cobb's help portraying the "working man" vs the evil corporate apologists in his free TS space.

    It works, because people don't see through it unless they are really paying attention, and most aren't.

    And, WELCOME, Misty!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Misty, Jones and Flemming confirmed that they were part of the Arkley/MC slate. More than once.

    What part of that confuses you?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rose,

    Richard couldn’t hope to access the kind of money that the Arkley slate had. He had to emphasize grassroots. We don’t know how much was spent in support of the MC project and that slate of candidates, but it was a lot more than they declared and nobody seems to have written about it yet.

    Between the value of the precinct walkers that SN hired to promote the Marina Center project, the HBC poll results, the mailers to all voters promoting the MC, the anonymous glossy mailers reminding MC supporters and registered Republicans to vote, and the night-before the election door hangers to the same voters, there was a lot of money being spent to support that slate which they never had to declare.

    Any ideas what that might have cost?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The fact that Nan Abrams, Larry Glass, Ron Kuhnel, Peter LaVallee and Bonnie Neely were put forth as a slate caused the media to define their opposition as a slate. What part of that confuses you 10:06?

    ReplyDelete
  13. 12:36, what makes you think Salzman doesn't have access to money? What makes you think every thing he did was declared? Who paid for the Anti-Arkleyville stickers? Which candidate declared those? Oh, CREG, maybe? Except, no, they don't disclose anything, do they? Who paid for the CREG ads? Which the slate benefited from because it left them free to act middle of the road and rational, letting CREG do all the dirty work - does anyone have any doubt who CREG's work benefitted?

    You continue to go after one side and ignore the other.

    Starting with Salzman's so-called Alliance for Ethical Business. Start there. Then we can have a rational discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rose,

    Lots of us don't care about AEB.
    You are obviously willing to overlook everything that Arkley's team (HBC, Eureka Coalition for Jobs, HELP, etc.) does and don't hold Arkley accountable for his support.

    Your hypocritical statement about going after one side an ignoring the other is quite accurate...about you. No defense of CREG or AEB here, just a desire to look at the whole picture.

    Don't forget, Arkley supported Gallegos even through the recall and into the early days of the re-election campaign. At the same time that Richard was working with Gags. Both men are responsible for his still being in the DA's office. And we pay for it in our community every day.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Have you heard me defend any of those groups? No. But none has had such an effect - or been so entirely ignored by people willing to look the other way as the so -called Alliance for Ethical Business, which was a lie from the word go. And which dwarfs the other groups you mention.

    All the squawks about campaign finance reform - and people continue to ignore this very dangerous practice of setting up shadow groups that skirt and flaunt the laws - it's time to admit it - and demand answers, starting with Salzman and the so-called AEB - how much money did he raise, who was behind it, where did the money go? How much was spent on Paul? How much went into prepping a candidate for debates? How much went to think tanks? How much was spent on advertising? How much was spent on Public Relations efforts which garnered the DA national publicity? Who was paid for that? Where did the money come from? How much paid for "Timber Yes Fraud No" bumper stickers? Did any of it pay for GALLEGOS bumper stickers?

    Do you know? No. And the basic premise of the Fair Political Practices Act says you have a right to. BUT these guys skirted the law. Period.

    Gallegos has a Quackenbush problem with Salzman and the AEB and you want to ignore it.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And, by the way, to my knowledge no one knows the genesis of the Eureka Coalition for Jobs and their ad campaign which torpedoed Rex Bohn's chances in the election against Kerrigan. Many speculate that it was a Salzman dirty trick.

    And it is right up there with the $1,000 bribe for a hit piece on a sitting County Supervisor, the bumper stickers against another sitting County Supervisor sent out in plain brown wrappers, the soliciting of a candidate to run in for 5th District Supervisor using one of Salzman's aliases, and Salzman's attempt at inventing a "grass roots" effort by posting his stupid little anti-Arkley stickers on parking meters.

    You can draw your own conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  17. And one more thing, none of the other groups you mentioned has gone about attempting to USE the political office of the candidate they succeeded in getting in to office as a weapon in order to accoomplish their agenda.

    You don't care about the Alliance for Ethical Business.

    But you should care about Salzman's plan, where he, Stoen, and Gallegos were attempting to set up a "Trust Fund" to enable them to solicit, accept and use special interest money to FUND A PUBLIC PROSECUTION.

    IF YOU AREN'T CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ATTEMPT TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE OUR PUBLIC JUDICIAL SYSTEM, YOU SHOULD BE.

    The DA's office is the PEOPLE'S branch of the judicial system. It MUST be kept pure and free from the influence of special interest money.

    NONE of those groups has set out to so fundamentally CORRUPT our system.

    You don't care? What do you care about then?
    (sigh.)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rose, that's four posts in a row. Rather Steven Lewis of you. You're a lot smarter than Steven, and you tend to actually post information rather than just empty rants, but carrying on a one-sided conversation is a worrisome sign. Perhaps you need to take a break for bit.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.