Wednesday, May 31st, 2006...5:11 pm
Back Atcha…
The Democratic Party has filed a complaint against Gubernatorial candidate Len Munsil, because his website did not bear a “Paid for by…” on it. This may seem like a piddly complaint, but this law is designed to prevent the sort of anonymous attacks that we saw here in the CD 8 race last week. It also exists so that campaigns must take responsibility for their communications.
It is sort of funny, campaigns know to put “Paid for by…” on everything, and have done that for years, decades. Who was the bonehead who forgot? What campaign will he be working next week?
Since this complaint goes to Jan Brewer rather than the considerably more non-partisan Clean Elections Commission, anyone taking bets on whether any action will be taken? Not that I would ever allege that our Secretary of State would act in any way except above petty partisanship.
14 Comments
May 31st, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Tedski I am glad you are covering these important infractions. Since Len’s mistake was serious enough to write about maybe both he and Janet should both be disqualified from the ballot in the spirit of bipartisanship. I think it would be great if Jan and the CCEC take these errors as seriously as happened with David Burnell Smith.
Hey, wouldn’t that leave Don (now has supporters) still in the race?
May 31st, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Naw…I just won’t mention that one because I am a cynical, partisan bastard.
June 1st, 2006 at 7:24 am
It’s also not relevant, either.
Janet demonstrably had public funds in her account that made her web site entirely legal.
Munsil demonstrably did not have the appropriate text on his web site, making his infraction clearly illegal.
So, yes: disqualify everyone who campaigns illegally. So far, that appears to be Munsil, only.
Much as I’m sure that reality upsets Republican partisans like phx kid. But as we all know, reality has a well-known liberal bias…
June 1st, 2006 at 8:12 am
Geo I am not upset.
On the topic of reality Janet is the one under investigation by the CCEC.
June 1st, 2006 at 9:38 am
I gotta go with phx kid on this one (right up until the disqualification from the ballot. you had me then you lost me kid).
Janet’s alleged violation is much more serious than Lenny’s. That web site helped her take in a lot of $5 contributions immediately. I should know. I downloaded the form that first day. So, if she had enough funds (and that has yet to be determined geo) to pay for that site (w/ video!!) before she filed her paperwork, she might be ok. But if not (so far from what I’ve heard she would have had to have a hell of a discount to have been able to pay for it w/ what she had on hand), I wonder what campaign Janet’s bonehead will be working for next week?
Oh, and P.S., the Clean Elections Commission sent parts of the complaint over to the Secretary of State’s office to investigate. So she’s not out of the woods even if the considerably more non-partisan commission clears her.
Stay tuned!
June 1st, 2006 at 10:11 am
Whoa, whoa, Geo. Janet did not “demonstrably had (have) public funds in
her account that made her web site entirely legal.”
She did not even set up an exploratory committee, so she didn’t even
have seed money. And she did not have public funds because she hadn’t
even begun to collect the $5 contributions on the day she filed her
candidate papers.
June 1st, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Now, if only the Tucson sign code enforcers will get on Mr. Munsil for his numerous illegally placed signs on the East Side all would be good.
You wouldn’t know anything about that, would you Ted?
June 1st, 2006 at 3:05 pm
Hell…I would want to face Munsil if I were a Democrat. Don’t disqualify what might be the most extremist candidate I have seen in years for a major state-wide office.
June 1st, 2006 at 8:17 pm
Seed money can come from Janet herself you know. She can write herself a check…which I know everyone thinks would be weird but Janet DOES make enough annually to have the funds on hand.
As for the registration of her campaign regarding state statutes:
16-903.A states that she would have to have her campaign committee registered before she spent any money. So for instanceif on March 1 she filed her statement of organization and the website was up on March 2 at 12:01 AM, she would be okay since she could spend money.
16-941.A.2 lets the Governor donate $1,000 towards her own campaign when filing clean as a state wide candidate. The website probably did not cost more then $1,000 for reservation of the domain, server space, and code written.
June 1st, 2006 at 9:34 pm
kralmajales
Don’t disqualify what might be the most extremist candidate I have seen in years for a major state-wide office
When exactly did Fife Symington last appear on the ballot anyway?
The scary thing about it is that extremists don’t necessarily always lose.
And let’s be honest here– Republicans have nothing to run on against Janet. Their stale old ‘tax cuts are the answer to every problem that has ever existed’ rhetoric has about worn itself out, so lacking anything substantive, they have grabbed this as their last chance.
As far as the Munsil issue is concerned, I suspect that Ted’s title pretty much sums it up; those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
June 14th, 2006 at 9:43 am
This post has been removed by the author.
June 14th, 2006 at 9:45 am
This post has been removed by the author.
June 14th, 2006 at 9:48 am
This post has been removed by the author.
June 14th, 2006 at 9:50 am
This post has been removed by the author.
Leave a Reply