Go to the front page of: this blog ||| Venice Florida! dot com

Monday, October 24, 2011

Nonpartisanship questioned by dummies who don't understand campaign laws

.
The following is a Letter to the Editor at the Gondolier, which I guarantee you that they won't publish as they are not in the habit of correcting their errors. This is in response to a recent article that stated that myself and Don Anderson had violated campaign laws by working at the fair booths of national political parties during the recent Sun Fiesta. In reality, Dave Sherman and Gondo reporter Greg Giles invented a non-existent law and then chastised us for breaking it. Proofreaders and fact-checkers at the Gondo let it slide into print without verifying the accuracy of the story.

Contrary to what you might have read or written, there is no prohibition against political parties getting involved in non-partisan elections. Quite the opposite is true and always has been. To write that partisanship has been "happening subtly for years" indicates that the writer has either been sleeping for a few decades or is writing about a land I know not where.

There is a huge legal difference between a non-partisan race and a non-partisan election. Venice has non-partisan elections.

A non-partisan election means two things and two things only: No (D) or (R) appears on the ballot and there are no primaries. That's it. That's all it means.

I researched all of this many years ago and every once in a while I have to educate someone on the law and the history behind it.

In the 1970's, Venice (then a typical southern heavily Democratic town) did away with partisan elections for one reason: it saved money by eliminating primaries in city council elections. The political parties stayed involved and are still involved, although to a much lesser extent today.

I don't know anything about this so-called "spirit of the law" that Dave Sherman invented and that the Gondo wrote about. I do know that I and the other candidate were accused by the Gondo of breaking campaign laws when, in actuality, we were obeying the letter of the law.

While we are talking about campaign laws (and this is important because as candidates we are seeking to become lawmakers), there's this glass house thing going on with Dave Sherman, as there is specific legal wording that has to be used on print advertising, and Sherman is breaking that law. Well, he's kind of in the spirit of the law, but he's definitely breaking the letter of it in his handout brochures. It's the same mistake that Bud LeFebvre is making on his campaign signs and that Jeanette Gates made in her advertising last year.

The correct wording has to be this, exactly this and nothing else but exactly this: "Political advertisement paid for and approved by John Doe for Venice City Council, seat #x" where x is the actual seat number. Anything else and you are violating election campaign laws.

Sherman's ads leave off the words "and approved." Gates' ads last year left off the words "paid for and." LeFebvre is so off the mark that it defies description. His signs state, "Paid for and approved by Bud LeFebvre no party affiliation."

Those are three actual bona fide violations of campaign laws that have been committed by candidates who can't figure out how to obey existing campaign laws. In Sherman's case, after failing to understand a simple part of campaign law, he goes the extra step to invent fictional campaign laws that he expects others to obey.

Granted, the disclaimer wording violations are minor. I have no intention of reporting them to election officials. Anyone would have to be a real jerk to report these petty violations.

However, to my less-than-knowledgable opponent I would issue a reminder that people who live in glass houses shouldn't invent fictional campaign laws. Or something like that.

No comments:

Post a Comment