Friday, April 11th, 2008...1:40 pm
FEC Complaint Filed Over Mis-Bee-Havior
Yeah, Tim Bee was hoping everyone forgot about that ad. Well, now he has an FEC complaint about the ad hanging over his head.
Attacks on Bee a few months back over his not resigning his office while “exploring” a congressional run had no legal result, but seemed to make him dial back on campaign activities. Even if this doesn’t result in fines (and it probably won’t, given the FEC’s current circumstances), it’s gotta keep him off balance a wee bit, and make national donors wonder if this guy and his campaign are ready for the big leagues.
I haven’t heard reaction from the Bee camp. I’m not sure how the next set of denials will be constructed: here we’ve got an ad produced by a firm headed up by a lobbyist that has raised money for Bee, Bee participated in the ad’s taping, and at least one guy in the ad (a longtime friend of Bee) has said that he understood that the ad was for political purposes. When this started, Bee claimed that he had no idea what was up. If he is that brain addled, he probably shouldn’t be in congress.
20 Comments
April 11th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
What a bunch of babies. The liberal teachers are supporting Tim Bee and you guys wet your pants and went running to the FEC. I thought your idiot savant incumbent was crushing him in support and fundrasing. So now you’re mad at your own liberal educators for not fawning at the Giffords altar but you’re desperately trying to redirect your anger at Tim Bee. Nice try.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Nice try, the teacher appears in the ad and who admitted it was a campaign ad is a Republican.
Typical Bushie who doesn’t know how to do his homework.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
So, let me get this straight, you’re mad at the teachers, right? Sooooo that’s why you went to the FEC, an organization that oversees teachers. Brilliant! Have a Guiness.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
???? FEC oversees teachers?
again, do your homeowork.
April 11th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Sarcasm, baby. That was precisely my point: you’re mad a the techers so you run to the election police? Again….Brilliant! What a bunch of knotheads.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Who said anyone was mad at teachers?
YOU said “liberal” teachers backing Bee. Where are they? You were wrong.
Nice try trying to cover yourself - it didn’t work -and now you’ve cornered yourself with your lack of logic and skills.
The people with Bee’s campaign can do better than what you’ve tried I’m sure.
You know, Graf tried to use blogs but it backfired on him because it exposed who was backing him. Keep it up, I’m sure Bee appreciates it.
Hey, post your real name…
April 12th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Flipper -
I don’t think anyone here is angry but you.
The complaint was made to the FEC because the ad was blatantly ILLEGAL.
Funny how conservatives are all about locking up “lawbreakers” when it comes to immigration but willing to look the other way when election laws are broken.
No one is mad at teachers. I bet the teachers in the districts that paid for the ad didn’t even know about it.
Oh and Ted - it’s not the Bee “camp” - it’s the Bee Hive!
April 12th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Nicely said Michelle.
The ad is illegal. But as I said before, it won’t amount to much of anything…a fine that will be paid by his donors well after the election.
What I didn’t bargain on was this having legs with the press and, as one person said, if Bee knew about it and particpated, after saying he didn’t, then he is a liar…and broke the law.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
If there were any rules broken I’m sure the FEC will sort it all out. Just seems to be a bit odd that the venom from the outset was directed at the Bee camp when the lobbying group is alleged to have done something wrong. I’m sure all you brain surgeons have the inside track. You’re as upset at that as we are upset at Gabby’s illegal use of franking.
And it is amusing as heck that the teachers are probably seething at some sort of industry support of a Republican….chalk is surely expolding in their clenching fists. They’ve probably taken the weekend off from trying to seduce students, they’re so upset.
Those who broke any laws, if any were broken, should be held accountable, no more or less than precedence dictates. Glad the DCCC is on the watch for illegal campaigning. That would explain the voter registration drives at the cemetary.
The Democratic Party certainly knows how to keep the campaign forcused on the issues. Dressing Steve Huffman, not even a general election opponent, in a chicken suit…now that’s some dignified campainging. We expect more of the same later this year. Tedski’s illustration is probably not too far off from what we’ll be seeing from the left. Thanks for giving the voters here the respect of an issues based campaign.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Voter registration drives at the cemetary? Gosh, you are one to complain now, I guess.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:33 am
2000: Gore will take away all your guns if elected.
2002: Max Cleland compared to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
2004: John Kerry will ban the Bible.
2006: “Please don’t steal this sign, Harry!”
I’m so fucking glad there’s a Republican out there courageous enough to let all us poor dumb lefties know what constitutes good issues-based campaigns.
Also, nice jab at “teachers seducing students.” I’m sure we’d all be better off if we just let our schools be run by religious institutions– like they do in Pakistan.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Flipper,
I am damn mad at the school district, and am especially mad because they admitted that it was to help Bee in his election.
Come on, if it had been the other way around, you can’t tell me that you wouldn’t be howling about:
a) Miss-use of taxpayers funds.
b) government supporting one candidate over another
c) the clear legal violation in it.
As for the franking, it just isn’t illegal. Period. We can argue as to whether it is a waste of taxpayer money to have it, but that is a decidedly non-partisan issue.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Flipper, you are wrong. Printing campaign brochures at taxpayer’s expense is illegal. Read the difference between franking and campaign brochures. She has clearly crossed the line.
1. What direct evidence do you have that Tim Bee knowingly participated in taping the TV adds in question. Evidence not speculation.
2. What was the name of the person and his relationship to the Bee campaign who stated he knew the ad was specifically made to benefit Bee’s campaign for US Congress? What were his exact statements?
3. The whole idea behind paying lobbyists and ad agency’s to help promote current and future legislation that is beneficial to a school district is political. Your objection is they thanked Tim Bee not Gabby Gifford’s.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
The press has found out that Bee showed up to give a little footage…for what? Huh? This clearly illegal thank you message. The statement from the teacher associated with the ad pretty much gets at its purpose. The fact is that it also violates state policy and FEC policy. As for the more evidence…I think it will be on its way. A nice way to find out is if Cox will turn over the footage they shot that day to the press. What do they have to hide? Turn over the film Cox!
On Franking. Not in the least bit illegal, a distraction Walt, and also not working. Franking is always used to get the name out of the candidate and to claim credit for projects, to annouce what they have done, and to advertise meetings. Show me that she has done any different. Also, look close…all your boys and girls in the Senate and House do it…as does your current, not so stealthy, candidate for Governor, Andy Thomas.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I apologize, the above comment was meant for Kralmajales not flipper.
“ The franking privilege may only be used for matters of public concern or public service.” 39 U.S.C. 3210(3)(a)
April 14th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
And each of her mailers were used for each, Walt.
Bee’s issue is far more sticky.
Where is your outrage about school district money going to his cause?
April 14th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
One mailing that Gabby sent out printed a Sierra Vista Herald proclamation of her support for (I believe it was) vets. This is not saying, “here’s what I’m doing for my constituents” it was saying “look at this endorsement of my work by the Sierra Vista Herald”. It looked, sounded, and walked like a campaign piece…it was a campaign piece. As a taxpayer, it’s good to know that education $ are being spent on lobbyists. Kind of makes the “oh we need more money” argument ring a little hollow when you find out that government is lobbying governement for more money. As a Republican it makes me squeal with delight that the teachers money is being used to thank an effective, principled Republican leader. As Mr. Kral stated, he’s darned upset about it. If I was him, I guess I’d feel pretty burned about it too–in the sense of betrayed. Everyone is also upset that a Republican with a leadership position chose to stick with the job he started. I’d rather Tim campaigned full time because no matter how much I may disagree with Gabby on the issues, I do admit she’s an excellent campaigner.Bottom line, if the lobbying group broke FEC law, then, again I will state it, they should be held accountable. If anyone with involvement in the spot broke the law, likewise. If the FEC finds no violation, conversely, the left should abandon this hollow issue. But they won’t in the same way they did not abandon the hollow issue of the Tim’s exploratory committee.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
1. What direct evidence do you have that Tim Bee knowingly participated in taping the TV adds in question. Evidence not speculation.
Bee has already stated he knew about the taping - he just says he didn’t know what it was for - Like Gabby would get away with that one.
If Gabby had an ad like this it would find its way to Bill O’Reilly.
2. What was the name of the person and his relationship to the Bee campaign who stated he knew the ad was specifically made to benefit Bee’s campaign for US Congress? What were his exact statements?
I believe his name is Connett, he’s the pres of the Vail EA and a Republican supporter of Bee. He also said they ALL knew it was to be used AGAINST Giffords. The Vail website also says he is trying to become an adminstrator in vail.
EXACT WORDS:
“I don’t know who arranged it, but I know someone must have, because it was kind of on the agenda,” said Richard Connet, president of the Vail Education Association teachers union and a Republican who supports Bee for Congress.
“We all knew it was going to be used also for his run against [Gabrielle] Giffords,” Connet said.
3. The whole idea behind paying lobbyists and ad agency’s to help promote current and future legislation that is beneficial to a school district is political. Your objection is they thanked Tim Bee not Gabby Gifford’s.
Again, you mistake paying lobbyists with influencing a campaign. One is legal - one is not. Franking is legal - the Bee ad is not.
15-511. Use of school district or charter school resources or employees to influence elections; prohibition; civil penalty; definition
A. A person acting on behalf of a school district or a person who aids another person acting on behalf of a school district shall not use school district or charter school personnel, equipment, materials, buildings or other resources for the purpose of influencing the outcomes of elections.
F. The attorney general or the county attorney for the county in which an alleged violation of this section occurred may initiate a suit in the superior court in the county in which the school district or charter school is located for the purpose of complying with this section.
G. For each violation of this section, the court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed five hundred dollars plus any amount of misused funds subtracted from the school district budget against a person who knowingly violates or a person who knowingly aids another person in violating this section. The person determined to be out of compliance with this section shall be responsible for the payment of all penalties and misused funds. School district funds or insurance payments shall not be used to pay these penalties or misused funds. All misused funds collected pursuant to this section shall be returned to the school district or charter school whose funds were misused.
H. An attorney acting on behalf of a public school may request a legal opinion of the county attorney or attorney general as to whether a proposed use of school district resources would violate this section.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Walt, you’re dead wrong on the franking thing.
All of those pieces have to be approved in their final form by an independent franking office before they can be sent at government expense. Since they have already been judged to be legal by the appropriate and responsible authority, I think your claims that Giffords broke the law don’t hold up particularly well.
If you don’t like the rules, call your Congressmen.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I am a taxpayer annoyed at paying taxes for the salaries of lawmakers who run for other offices. After a certain point, RESIGN and let someone else pay full attention to your job.
Leave a Reply