Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Facts. And truth.

George Clarks' recent foray into the Eureka City Council Race as the "progressive" candidate deserves scrutiny, since all signs are that Salzman is involved in this campaign.

Clark's recent fundraising letter contains the following statement: ...the right-wing developers will raise thousands of dollars to fund my opponent. In 2004, they spent over $150,000 in an attempt to unseat Chris Kerrigan, and in 2006 they spent nearly that amount in an attempt to defeat Supervisor Bonnie Neely. Often this money is raised in $1,000 chunks from big developers who are able to write those checks....

Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Clark - But I believe Kerrigan outspent Rex Bohn with Kerrigan spending about $105,000, and Bohn at $102.000 or so.

What I remember is Bohn had about 20 pages or more listing small donors and the highest donation was $2K or so for an auction item, compared to Kerrigan's five pages or so that listed lots of large donors, the largest of which were Bill Pierson family entities totaling $12K+.

And, of course there was the infamous hit piece by Salzman himself.

51 comments:

  1. Stand by Rose

    This will not be the first time that George or his handlers will not let the truth get in the way of an accusation.

    It'll be interesting to see how they will attack a decent, qualified candidate like Jager.

    With any luck, even the guy on the street will see through this self-serving nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Some people have told me Clark is a 'nice guy' - so is he or isn't he? And if he is, will he allow this to go on in his name? Because winning that "progressive" majority is all that matters?

    ReplyDelete
  3. More importantly, when does Mr. Clark get his $10,000 from the tribe?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Funny how you draw all the attention to some lonely Salzman letter, yet you ignore the "Eureka coalition for jobs" hitpiece that consisted of TV ads and mailers running nonstop till the day of the election. You are probably still blaming Salzman for that one too. And it makes perfect sense that he would use Arkley's lawyer to pull it off. Brilliant!

    Count the total amount of scratch that it took to run those ads and I'm sure his total is well above Kerrigan.

    60 percent to 40 percent Rose! That must have just killed you! And how much did Connie Miller loose by? Ouch! I heard some great stories from her "victory" party that lovely night!

    Can't wait till November when Rose goes on Hiatus again after all the conservatives fail one by one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And you love to call out the tribe contributions any chance you have- must be a conspiracy. So how do you feel about Arkley giving the Mayor's campaign 15 grand last time around? Oh, I'm sure that was just fine with you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Some "lonely Salzman letter"? "A private email" send to 3,000 of his closest supporters. Resulted in condemnation from all of the papers. Kerrigan himself weakly condemned it. Yeah, just a lonely little letter.

    So Clark is figuring in the "Eureka Coalition for Jobs" as Bohn's funding? Funny, since the ads torpedoed his campaign, which was a positive, high-road campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rose -

    The truth is in the 460 Campaign Finance Forms at Eureka City Hall.

    Large Campaign Contributors (>$1,000)- Chris Kerrigan 2004

    8/26/2004 Richard Cogswell & Ester Saunoras (Petrolia) $2,000

    10/27/2004 Betty Kuhnel $1,000

    10/10/2004 Ron and Melanie Kuhnel $1,970

    10/12/2004 Dr. Ken Miller $1,500

    10/29/2004 Arlene Banducci $4,904

    10/29/2004 Michael Kerrigan $4,295

    12/31/2006 Bill Pierson $10,705

    So who was the big money supporters in the local Eureka race?

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is one more campaign form you should review - the major Donor Form 461.

    By FPPC law this form must be filed within 10 days of contributing $10,000 or more.

    Let's take a wild guess who was the largest contributor to local Eureka politics in 2006?

    Not the Arkleys.

    Not the Native-America Rancherias (casinos).

    Drum roll please.... the winner is:

    Bill Pierson via three (or more) sources:

    1. William and Elizabeth Pierson
    2. Sedgefield Properties
    3. Pierson Building Supply

    who gave a total of $35,660 to local Eureka city campaigns during 2006.

    This is on top of the $5,000 he gave to Bonnie Neely in 2005 and $5,000 in 2007 (off-election years).

    And be on the lookout for Elizabeth's maiden name of "Elizabeth Hardwood" so Bill can avoid having it traced back to him.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "So how do you feel about Arkley giving the Mayor's campaign 15 grand last time around?"

    The stupidity of the anonymous bloggers never ceases to amaze me.

    This dunce must be referring to Mayor Virginia Bass' 2006 campaign.

    According to the 460s, Cherie Arkley gave Mayor Bass only $1,300 at an auction in 2006, not "$15 grand".

    If you're gonna be a nasty anonymous Regressive, at least get your facts straight.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yeah, the last big Arkley money I remember was $17.000 to Gallegos. It was only after he split with Salzman that he suddenly became the villain. Salzman was more than happy to take his money.

    In this and every other case, people who are thinking it is ok to get in bed with Salzman need to take heed. There is a price to be exacted if you don't toe the line.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think anon was referring to Nancy Flemming's campaign. Didn't she receive a large contribution towards the end after lifting the 500 cap? She needed it to compete with Neely's bank.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ya kow,George's campaign office is open every day,is smack dab in the middle of Old Town,right next to his old restaurant,so perhaps instead of popping off with innuendo and rhetoric,one should actually get a hold of him in person and address one's concerns and confirm for themselves some basesless jargon about a very qualified candidate with a backing of like minded citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is a blog Konkler. Perhaps George should read these comments and address them. They seem to have merit.

    Rose, George has always impressed me as an amiable guy. I am hoping that he has just been naive about all of this. Now that it is out, I expect him to quit doing the duck-step with folks who call themselves progressive but who really are close minded and lacking principles. If he refuses to play ugly politics, then this will be a race on issues. If not, I will not even consider voting for him.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Talk about negative campaigning, McSame has gone off the cliff lately. He must be very desperate to be making the shrill and completely false claims himself rather than having his campaign staff do it. He must not realize that we are smart enough to understand when a candidate has to lie about his opponent it shows he has nothing factual to say against him.

    ReplyDelete
  15. By 9:50's reasoning we should be counting the "Alliance for Ethical Business'" expenditures on behalf of Gallegos. And what would that add to Gallegos' total? Another $300,000? So we could say that "out of town" special interests spent in excess of $700.000 to protect their PL lawsuit?

    And what would be the response if we did so? Would it be true? Or not? And who would know?

    Whoever is writing Mr. Clark's campaign materials should be held to the same standard. If he is going to start out his campaign this way, everything he says will be suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rose, I could care less about the PL lawsuit. My question had to do with the Eureka City Council races-

    I love how you spin everything around, broadening the circle till your conspiracy theory surfaces

    ReplyDelete
  17. Having a little bit of knowledge of what has gone before is very helpful, 10:53. Especially when you are dealing with the exact same factions.

    If there is any spin going on here, it is coming out of Clark's campaign. I am trying to get at the truth.

    There are questions - who is really pulling the strings here? Does Clark have what it takes to stand on his own two feet and run as a normal person? Is he another one who is going to sell his soul to the devil? Is it "Local Solutions"? Is it Salzman? Are they working together? While Clark is crying about big money boogey-men, will he be taking large donations from Pierson? The tribes?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Will you simply assume he "is going to sell his soul to the devil" Rose, or will you actually speak with him about it? A simple conversation might go along way.

    And for you to consider him "sell(ing) his soul to the devil" does he only need to do one of the following:

    1. Use some email list that includes some of Salzman's email contacts

    2. Accept any contribution from Miller

    3. Accept any contribution from Pierson

    4. Accept any contribution from a tribe


    I don't understand how one of these becoming a fact allows you to assume he ""is going to sell his soul to the devil."

    It can't be that simple for you, can it?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Rose is simple. All hypocrisy all the time. Negative campaigns are bad unless her candidate is waging one. Corporate contributions are bad unless her candidate is the recipient. Campaign contributions masquerading as issue ads from special interest groups are bad unless they are from HELP and HumCPR because those are good special interest groups and not bad like HWC and Baywatchers. Simple as in simple minded.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. No, Rose is trying to point out the hypocricy of baykeeper supporters decrying groups like HELP and HumCPR.

    Heraldo anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Congratulations, Rose. You nailed it on this posting, and have those who wish to re-write history running for cover.

    Regardless of which side of the political fence you happen to sit on, overt money influence is bad, whether it comes from tribes, Bill Pierson, "corporate interests," or special interest groups such as Local Solutions, CREG or whoever.

    Just don't put on that poor "progressive" candidates are outspent by those who raise large amounts of funds from questionable sources. It simply ain't true.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Chris, would you dare to include Hum CPR, Humboldt Sunshine, HELP, etc. etc.?

    ReplyDelete
  24. The difference is that some groups are working for the public benefit by protecting the environment which we all need to be healthy and the others are working for their own financial gain. If you could understand the difference you wouldn't be who you are.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nonprofits are not allowed to donate ANY money to political campaigns. What about HumCPR and HELP?

    ReplyDelete
  26. And some are pretending to be 'protecting the environment' but really they are nothing more than lawsuit factories - they ignore any environmental degradation that doesn't come attached to a very very deep pocket.

    What we're also talking about here are multiple 'groups' made up of all the same people, claiming to be part of "a growing coalition" cross pollinating, singing on as supporters when in fact they are one and the same.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sounds like Chris doesn't want to speak critical of Hum CPR, HELP, Sunshine, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I agree, HELP, HumCPR, Humboldt Sunshine are all really the same group claiming to be a growing coalition. But they aren't nonprofit so they don't have to say where their money comes from.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Some of the individuals who donate to nonprofits may also donate to political campaigns, but again...none of those groups Rose is complaining about are allowed to contribute to political campaigns.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The point being made is for myself I have since the last election met Rex Bohn on numerous occasions at his soccer fields and at a couple non profit fundraisers he is loud has an oppinion but is niwhere near the evil out for himself individual that Richard Salzmann painted him to be. I wll not drink the kool-aid again. Gas prices have doubled since he left Renner what is with that. I will find out more on Georges opponet on my own.

    ReplyDelete
  31. OK, kids, here are a few tidbits for your consumption ...

    1) Under Measure T, nonprofits CAN donate, but all their Board of Directors must reside in Humboldt County.

    2) I object to undue influence no matter what side of the political fence. That means HumCPR, Democracy Unlimited, National Rifle Association, Sierra Club, etc. Instead of eliminating some entities from donating anything, all should be restricted in how much.

    And, for the record, the left seems to be raising more funds (and from more singular sources) than the right in local races. This is a trend worth noting, hence Rose's original posting challenging Mr. Clark's protestations to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ever try to go up against a corporation with deep pockets, Rose? It takes pockets that are deeper than yours or mine. Corporations go to court with the intent to delay the outcome while throwing every obstacle in the way of their opponent. All the while they continue to exploit and degrade the environment for short term gain. Equal representation under the law is what we the people are guaranteed. Legal personhood is what corporations have and they can afford way more representation than most real persons can. "Lawsuit factories" is just the kind of bone-headed statement I have come to expect from you and your equally dishonest friend and co-propagandist, Stephen Lewis. You are both pro-corporate anti-labor blow hards!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Thanks for the fair response Chris.

    Maybe Rose can learn some valuable lessons from you-

    ReplyDelete
  34. You're mixing things up, here, anonymous visitor, equating what Baykeeper does with the "Alliance for Ethical Business" scam. Maybe I'm missing something, maybe you have a guilty conscience that makes you do that.

    I criticize them for entirely different things. Baykeeper the dishonest lawsuit factory sham. I don't see any equivalent on the "right." They are dishonest from the word go.

    As was/is the so-called "Alliance for Ethical Business."

    I have never said that non-profits like "Baykeeper" donate to candidates.

    I'll get to the rest of your 'points' later.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Update: Word is coming in that Mark Lovelace's "Thank You" letters contain a request for donations for "Local Solutions" and a note that they are involved in the 2nd district race.

    I haven't seen a copy yet, but I will post it when I do.

    ReplyDelete
  36. COME ON CHRIS! Measure T doesn't prohibit contributions from nonprofits because they are prohibited from donating BY FEDERAL LAW and you damn well know it. What a piece of dishonest crap you are!

    ReplyDelete
  37. "COME ON CHRIS! Measure T doesn't prohibit contributions from nonprofits because they are prohibited from donating BY FEDERAL LAW and you damn well know it. What a piece of dishonest crap you are!"

    Uhmm, no they arent. It depends what section of the internal revenue code they are formed under.

    Federal law most certainly does NOT prohibit political donations.

    Instead of being so shrill, take a bit of time to research your so called facts.

    cpa

    ReplyDelete
  38. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code that are exempt from federal income tax are prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. Charities, educational institutions and religious organizations, including churches, are among those that are tax-exempt under this code section.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Yes, but as I said, there are non profits formed other other provisions of internal revenue code section 501. There are many others besides subsections (c)(3)

    Let me make it a bit clearer - not all non profits are 501 c3's. Many others are formed under other sub sections.

    cpa

    ReplyDelete
  40. None of them can use tax exempt funds for political purposes. All of Rose's "usual suspect" organizations that she complains about constantly are prohibited from donating to any political campaigns.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 5:21, you have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Either you are confused, or you are trying to deliberately obfuscate the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  42. You learned a new word. If you had enumerated the issues about which I am confused, it would be less confusing for all.

    ReplyDelete
  43. It would be easier if we could identify one issue that you seem to understand. The issues about which you are confused... too numerous to mention.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Got it, you don't have any examples of my confusion so you will just make blanket insulting statements over and over rather than explain. Your ignorant games are so transparent.

    ReplyDelete
  45. So 5:21 can humboldt watershed council lobby the planning commission and board of supervisors? consistency is a motherfucker isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  46. No, but they can educate them. Education about environmental issues is their stated purpose for which they received nonprofit, tax exempt status. See how easy consistency is?

    ReplyDelete
  47. It's actually off the topic of this conversation, but - you say All the while they continue to exploit and degrade the environment for short term gain....

    I can certainly understand that if the entity is currently polluting.

    Suing a current property owner for historical damage that even predates them is not exactly the same thing is it? And not suing, say, your friends the tribal interests for the exact same thing is not exactly being consistent, is it?

    Making something out of hole-cloth just to press your suit is not exactly the same thing either, is it?

    NO. There's big money in this. It pays your salary, no doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  48. They don't pay my salary but I can't speak for 3:41. Are you having those self esteem issues again, assuming that all the anonymous are the same person? Your inability to understand that some people care about things that don't profit them personally is another of those flaws that seem to be prevalent in the conservative population. Everyone isn't like you.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Why do you continue to talk to these idiots Rose. they are true believers, facts don't mean shit to them.

    ReplyDelete
  50. For the first time in 150 years the citizens of Eureka will have the representation of a progressive majority on the City Council.

    Well, who wouldn't be in solidarity with that? Who wouldn't be in solidarity with a local economic development platform?

    Anti-environment, anti-progressive, anti-smart growth, anti-bike trail, anti-this, anti-that, pro LNG, pro-Goldman-Sachs, pro-outside control, pro-free trade, pro-big box, pro-tanking economy, man made global warming deniers and Rose.

    Did I miss anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  51. If George does ANY kind of negative attack or campaign against Frank Jager then we will know his true character.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open. Play nice.