Crossing the Law: In a Judicial Race?

[Metro Jacksonville]

Crossing the Law: In a Judicial Race?

When electing public officials to office, what do we, the voting public, have a right to expect from the candidates campaigning for those offices?  First and foremost we expect honesty.  Additionally, we expect the candidates to speak the truth and to play by the rules set forth in election law.  Are we ever let down?  Sure we are.  But we shouldn't let these disappointments lower our expectations that these candidates will follow the law.  

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/181

[RiversideGator]

Cameron,
     The problem I have with this is that Dan Wilensky (who I personally like and am considering voting for) always seems to be crying about the alleged misconduct of his opponents.  He ended up suing Judge Gooding after losing to him in the last election (a lawsuit which I believe was dismissed) and now he is leveling charges against Teresa McCaulie.  I think there are positive reasons why Wilensky should be elected and some reasons why McCaulie should not be (i.e. she has never been in private practice and her husband is a judge).  The bottom line is it makes it looks like he always has sour grapes.  Let me offer a bit of advice.  Campaign on positives like Wilensky's ties to Jacksonville and his long experience in private practice and with mediation rather than trying to tear down his opponents.  I think you will find this tactic far more helpful.
Gator
P.S.  Do you also go by pluribus in the forums?

[Polzzter]

Mr. Wilensky did sue Judge Gooding, the case was dismissed and Mr. Wilensky paid Judge Gooding's legal fees.

Now Mr. Wilensky wants us all to believe that somehow, someway he is again being dealt a bad hand through no fault of his own.  The truth is that when Mrs. McCaulie held the above mentioned event, according to the Florida Divison of Elections, she had more than enough to cover the event expenses.

Mr. Wilensky has hired a campaign consultant well known for his down and dirty smeer campaigns.  It is a shame that he has chosen to do so and makes me question his judgement.

[Cameron Cleo]

Polzzter,

There is a clear difference, concerning the timing of PAYING FOR a campaign event and THE ACTUAL OCCURENCE of the event.  The law states that the funds must be in the candidate's account at the TIME OF PURCHASE.  This is where the law was broken.  So, again, we have to ask, where did this money come from to pay for the kick-off party?

Riverside Gator,

Some good points you have made - and quite a few that I am not in a position to dispute.  But what is a "pluribus" in the forums?

[Polzzter]

Please check your facts on this, it appears that you have your dates wrong.

[Cameron Cleo]

Date of purchase is June 6, 2006.  On this day, candidate Thereasa McCaulie had $1,500.00 in her campaign account.  Also on this day, a vendor received a check for well over $3,000.00 for McCaulie's kick-off party.  You seem somewhat knowledgeable about the situation.  Do you have other facts?  Please share if possible.

Go here for supporting documentation:

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/cgi-bin/CandHtml.exe?account=42679&elecid=20061107-GEN

[Cameron Cleo]

Actually Polzzter, I now wonder if there have been 2 violations of state election law.  Upon more in-depth viewing of the link I posted a few minutes ago, I now see that under the "Expenditures" category on this site, the purchase in question is actually not even being reported by McCaulie.  Again, do you have any further insight into the situation?

[Polzzter]

I think the event you are referring to was in mid July not June.  

[Cameron]

Yeah, my last comment was supposed to read "July" instead of "June".  Still, it doesn't matter if the event actually took place Thanksgiving Day, the following facts remain:

1) The kick-off event was paid for on July 6th.
2) The amount paid on July 6th well exceeded $3,000.
3) On July 6th, the campaign account of Terri McCaulie showed a balance of $1,500, therefore there is no way McCaulie could've covered this expense out of her campaign account.
4) Number 3 is illegal.
5) As of today, McCaulie is yet to report this expenditure accurately in her campaign finance reporting to the state.
6) Number 5 is illegal.

Do you dispute any of these facts?

[RiversideGator]

Cameron,
     Even assuming all of this is true, it looks like an honest (and trivial) mistake.  I think attempting to create a tempest out of a teapot really makes your candidate look petty.  Do you really think this will decide the election?
Gator

[ClydeC]

I agree with you Gator.  These are the types of things you see from candidates that don't think they can win.  After rereading the Times Union article about this race I can see why he would be so nervous.  Wilensky was denied appointment to the bench by both Chiles and Bush.  He then ran for office and was denied election by the voters.  Then he sued his opponent and his case was dismissed with prejiduce by the judge who also ruled that he should pay the defendents legal fees.

Now he wants us to believe that he is a "changed man" and has the temprement to be a judge.

It's really quite sad when you stop to think about it.  Sometimes its best to just accept your lot in life and move on.

[JaxCop]

Four years ago I supported Dan.  It is because of silly little complaints like the one that Cameron is alleging that I am not this time.  

He really does not have much of a campaign.  All he has is the money his daddy left him and nothing else.  All of the major organizations and players in this city are endorsing McCaulie.  She is beating him at every turn and he should lose by a bigger margin than he did last time.  I suppose he will find a reason to sue her also.  Had he only hired a different person to run his race, people would have gotten behind him.  Instead he brought in the same team that lost it for him the last time and therefore no one believes he can win.

[Cameron]

For the record, we, as an organization do not endorse a candidate.  I may individually.  But if that is the case, it is my responsibility to state such.  In this case, the fact is that I know very little (actually, nothing-save the information from the comments related to this article) about Wilensky.  That being true, it would be quite difficult for me to back him over his opponent.  For these reasons, I am not doing that.

And, RiversideGator.  Is it really a trivial matter?  Unaccounted for funds are financing part of a candidate's campaign for office and that is trivial?  I believe much more trivial matters have been hinge points in legal cases.

All this aside, the point appears to be being missed.  The point of the article is not "Vote for Wilensky, not McCaulie!"  Rather, it is that our candidates for public office have a high responsibility to obey the laws of the campaign.  When a candidate doesn't, no matter who it is, it would be irresponsible for us to not examine that.

Back to a personal note, regarding "just accept your lot in life" (forgetting who it may or may not relate to in the original comment by ClydeC).

----------------
"He failed in business in '31. He was defeated for state legislator in '32.He tried another business in '33. It failed. His fiancee died in '35. He had a nervous breakdown in '36. In '43 he ran for congress and was defeated. He tried again in '48 and was defeated again. He tried running for the Senate in '55. He lost.  The next year he ran for Vice President and lost. In '59 he ran for the Senate again and was defeated. In 1860, the man who signed his name A. Lincoln, was elected the 16th President of the United States. The difference between history's boldest accomplishments and its most staggering failures is often, simply, the diligent will to persevere."
-----------------

[JaxCop]

What is your organization?

[Cameron]

Metro Jacksonville, Inc.  You can check us out at www DOT metrojacksonville DOT com