Tag: Campaigns

OK, in the last couple of days, I have railed on about transparency, and frankly have had to go on offense, in defense of Ruth Johnson's courageous suggestion. I will admit to being a little reactionary because of the dunderhead commentary of McNeilly and his faux front, "Freedom Fund,"(click on the link, its a tension breaker) but still hold to the standards described.  

That flatly, we should aspire to true openness.

The language added to exceptions of regulated monies under SB661 (Amending the Michigan campaign finance act) is clearly a push back on Johnson's intention to open those shuttered windows into shadowy financing and advocacy. The added exemption reads:

"(j) An expenditure for a communication if the communication does not in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate so as to restrict the application ofthis act to communications containing express words of advocacy of election or defeat, such as "vote for", "elect", "support", "cast your ballot for", "Smith for governor", "vote against", "defeat", or "reject".

It limits her statutorily.

Many on the conservative side are actually a little more concerned however about THIS little gem. Lines struck out from the MCFA read:

"(a) A house political party caucus committee or a senate political party caucus committee shall not pay a debt incurred by a candidate if that debt was incurred while the candidate was seekingnomination at a primary election and the candidate was opposed at that primary.
  (b) A house political party caucus committee or a senate political party caucus committee shall not make a contribution to or make an expenditure on behalf of a candidate if that candidate is seeking nomination at a primary election and the candidate is opposed at that primary."

Yeah, I know, great excuse.  However, believe it or not, I like to door knock.  Folks (for the most part) appreciate a visit by someone who might well be representing them.  Sales are good so-to-speak, and anyone who I have talked with is positive and upbeat about the chances of turning this district to one that is a little more predictably conservative.  And along with great reception, I had a fair comparison made by the local dead tree media.  They properly represented my points and comparisons to those of my opponent in the primary:

"Jason Gillman, a Tea Party activist and a Grand Traverse County commissioner, rails against tax incentives, as well as laws that would benefit one business over another and other free market tinkering.

Incumbent Rep. Wayne Schmidt supports such programs as a way for Michigan to compete with other states to attract businesses that create jobs. The two will square-off in the Aug. 7 Republican primary for the 104th District House seat."

Its somewhat funny after looking at the article then seeing at the side, (to the left here) a reference to the Koch brothers.  Low budget grass root campaigns don't need em, but amazingly, the only thing that gets the left's undies bunched like the mention of George Bush, is a mention of anything to do with the Kochs.  

Ring a bell they salivate, say "GW" and they will shout "no war for oil!", or have a successful message, and off to Koch-ville for those folks.

In any event, I'll be writing as I can, but have been happy with the contributions by others on those days where I am working [on this other matter] as mentioned here, and in the article below.

And I have found that running for delegate is like putting on a perfume that attracts a certain species of politico.  All of a sudden, mailings from prospective SOS, and AG candidates appear, and special surveys for delegates become a part of the daily calls coming in.

And I was never one of the popular kids in school.

I have to say, the ability to cast a vote for a strong Attorney General Candidate as well as the Secretary of State to go forward and face the choice of the Dems is quite a special deal.  At least the attention paid to those who might would suggest it is.