Aaron Schock isn’t the only candidate paying back public costs of a campaign event. The State Journal-Register reports that presidential candidate Barack Obama has started paying back bills he received from Springfield.
Category Archives: 2008 Campaign
LaHood says Callahan is not telling the truth
From a press release:
Congressman Ray LaHood calls on Colleen Callahan to pull TV ad
LaHood “irritated” Callahan is using his name to smear Schock in a “dishonest” ad
(SPRINGFIELD) In news conferences today in Peoria and Springfield, Congressman Ray LaHood expressed his irritation with Colleen Callahan’s latest TV ad using his name and that of his predecessor Bob Michel to attack Aaron Schock.
“The ad is dishonest and I am calling on Colleen to pull it,” said LaHood. “Honesty requires you to tell the truth and Colleen Callahan is not telling the truth in this ad.”
LaHood continued, “If people want to carry on the legacy of honesty and integrity in the 18th District then Aaron Schock is the person who should be elected. The Chicago Tribune said that today. Bob Michel has said it and I am saying right here and now.”
“Using my name to insult the integrity of Aaron Schock really irritates me and it’s just not true. Colleen’s ad cites the Chicago Tribune which today strongly endorsed Aaron Schock for Congress in a lengthy, well-reasoned editorial. Using Bob Michel’s and my names to say that Aaron is dishonest is a dishonest attack itself. To that I say, Colleen Callahan pull that ad.”
LaHood said the notary issue that Callahan’s ad focuses on is a non-issue, “It was a clerical error eight years ago and it didn’t take long for a Democrat State’s Attorney to find no merit to the allegation.”
LaHood said the campaign ought to focus on the issues confronting our country now instead of “October Surprises”. LaHood noted Schock has aired ads on the economy and jobs, agriculture, energy, the environment and saving the river, while Callahan has only aired ads attacking Aaron Schock. LaHood said, “Colleen’s ads are not only negative attacks, they are dishonest and this one needs to be pulled off the air.”
“I strongly support Aaron, his integrity is rock solid and he has been an outstanding State Representative who is fully prepared to step up to represent the district in Congress. I want everyone to be clear on this,” said LaHood.
LaHood said, “Colleen Callahan should talk about what she is going to do, where she stands on the issues and how she wants to represent the people instead of attacking her opponent all the time and not picturing him in a way that is just plain not factual.”
When asked about Callahan’s calls for candidates to release tax returns, LaHood said in his 14 years he has not released his tax returns and that Bob Michel did not release his tax returns during his 38 years in office. LaHood said the reason is that there already are tough financial disclosures required by candidates and Members of Congress and these disclosures are far more detailed than a tax return. “Unlike a tax return, these financial disclosures list all assets, income and debts,” said LaHood.
Schock noted he has had to file financial disclosures for the past eight years as a school board member and state representative. He urged his opponents to catch up to him by filing disclosures for the past eight years.
In response to Callahan saying Schock has not addressed the notary issue, Schock said, “While I keep hearing I have not addressed this, I have repeatedly responded in numerous media interviews saying the first time I was aware of the issue was in press coverage this summer, that I made a mistake eight years ago and that I’m sorry. With that said, all three of my opponent’s television ads are negative attacks, and the lion’s share of her news releases and news conferences have been nothing more than attacks on me. It is certainly fair then to ask why Colleen’s campaign has been so completely negative.”
Schock said that in keeping with his past campaigns, he would remain focused on the issues and not attack his opponent. “People do want a change from our broken political system and the politics of personal destruction. Regardless what others do, I will stay positive and provide voters with yet another example of what a campaign should be.”
LaHood concluded by saying, “This is desperation on the part of a candidate who knows she is way behind but it’s not going to fool the people.”
Joan Krupa goes on offense against Gordon
Have you seen the latest Joan Krupa ad? Krupa’s first four ads were positive, then she released a defensive ad in response to negative attacks from her opponent, Jehan Gordon. Now she’s taken all the negative things we know about Gordon and rolled them into one 30-second ad:
Ouch!
State’s attorney closes Schock notary case
A press release from the State’s Attorney’s office via the Schock campaign:
NOTICE TO THE MEDIA
Last week our office was asked by a congressional candidate to review allegations that an opposing congressional candidate had notarized but wrongly or improperly dated a document in early 2000. Commendably, both candidates seem to agree that it would be best for any such review to be conducted and concluded as timely as possible. Accordingly, the State’s Attorney has asked me to conduct such a review and I have done so.
Any potential violation here under the Notary Public Act would be a misdemeanor called “official misconduct by a notary public”. This is not to be confused with the more common felony of Official Misconduct which involves criminal conduct during the performance of a duty in a public office (no such allegation of that has been made here).
One level of this type of misdemeanor requires the notary’s infraction to be “knowing and willful”. A lower level misdemeanor occurs if the notary’s infraction is merely “reckless or negligent”. No information is presented in this matter to show whether any of these descriptions occurred.
This area of law has its own section for extended limitations that somewhat lengthens the usual period that misdemeanors be filed within 18 months of their commission. However, under the most generous interpretation available, any such statute of limitations for filing an infraction on allegations such as these. would have expired approximately three years ago.
Therefore, this completes the review requested of our office.
Seth P. Uphoff
Assistant State’s Attorney
Case closed.
Schock splitting hairs in notary flap
But as a notary public, Schock was required to provide accurate information about witnessing documents being signed. Schock declared that he witnessed the documents being signed on Jan. 1, 2000, but they weren’t actually signed until more than a year later.
“I can honestly tell you I don’t remember signing anything. I’m sure I did,” he said. “But to ask me what day I signed a document eight years ago, I’m sorry to tell you I don’t remember.”
Schock […] commented on the subject while meeting with the (Springfield) State Journal-Register editorial board. He said he had notarized the document when he was 19, before he held elective office. “So I mean, the question of what I would be like if I was elected to office can be answered, has been answered,” he said, reciting his experience of being elected to the District 150 School Board and later to the Illinois House of Representatives. “I stand by my record in public office.”
These quotes prompted me to try to construct a timeline. I went back in the archives and determined that Schock decided to run for school board in December of 2000. In February of 2001, his petitions were challenged and he was ultimately removed from the ballot. He then mounted a write-in campaign and won on April 3, 2001. He started his term on July 2, 2001.
Based on published statements that the document that was dated Jan. 1, 2000 was actually signed “more than a year later,” that means it was signed after Jan.1, 2001. If it was signed before Schock “held elective office,” then that would mean it was signed before July 2, 2001.
So, I guess what we’re being asked to believe is that, in the less than six months between when Schock notarized a back-dated document and when he was elected and installed on the school board, he… changed. That stuff in early 2001 was a youthful indiscretion. But once he took office, he proved himself more mature, and not like that guy mere weeks before who engaged in professional misconduct.
Well, first of all, I think he’s splitting hairs. But secondly, Schock’s “record in public office” shows that he never really lost his inclination to playing fast and loose with the facts.
In 2006, when Senate Bill 2477 was being debated in the House, Schock told the lawmakers in Springfield a whopper. SB2477 was the bill that authorized District 150 to access funding through the Public Building Commission for their new school buildings. He told his colleagues, “This is a piece of legislation that is not only supported by our school board, but also our entire city council.” But the city council never took a position on the bill, nor were all the council members in favor of its passage. But the legislators in Springfield didn’t know that. They only know what our representative tells them.
Don’t forget what his support of that measure meant to Peoria: keeping our property taxes high without a binding referendum. If that bill hadn’t passed, the school board still could have gotten funding — they just would have had to ask the citizens of Peoria to approve the funding via referendum. Instead, the school board was able to go forward with their plans without any accountability to the voters at all.
I guess the common thread among all of Schock’s controversies of late is this: Can we trust him? Can we trust him to make the right decisions? To accurately represent our interests? To support the best policies? To do the right thing when he thinks no one is looking?
That will be up to the voters to decide next month.
Charting campaign spending
If you’ve read today’s Journal Star article on the amount of money raised and spent by candidates for the 18th Congressional District, I thought you might like to see a visual representation:
All I can say is, “Wow!”
Welcome, Rotarians!
Today, I had the privilege of speaking to the Peoria North Rotary. Matt Jones invited me to speak about the role of blogging in politics and public advocacy. This was the first time I had ever been to a Rotary meeting. I’ve always wondered what Rotary was all about; I’ve heard of it ever since I was a little kid and my grandfather would talk about being part of it.
So, to Matt and all the other Rotarians, thank you for having me; I had a very nice time and enjoyed meeting you.
And to the gentleman who asked me where Obama got his data for the assertion that “98% of small businesses make less than $250,000 a year,” it appears no one knows. But the New York Times thinks he may be correct:
According to figures compiled by the Small Business Administration, there are fewer than six million small businesses that actually have payrolls. The rest are so-called nonemployer firms that report income from hobbies or freelance work done by their registered owners, earning as little as $1,000 a year.
Of these, according to a calculation by the independent, non-partisan Tax Policy Center, fewer than 700,000 taxpayers would have to pay higher taxes under Mr. Obama’s plan. But even some of these are not small-business owners in the traditional sense; they include lawyers, accountants and investors in real estate, all of them with incomes that put them in the top tax brackets.
So are there “millions more like Joe the Plumber,” as Mr. McCain contended? Probably not. Mr. Obama may well have been correct when he stated that “98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000.”
Meanwhile, those who use the Small Business Administration’s guidelines come to a different conclusion:
The US Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a “small business” according to its average annual receipts or the number of its employees. Here are examples from the SBA’s Table of Small Business Size Standards setting forth the maximum average annual receipts by industry that a business can have and still be classified as a small business:
Crop production of all types — $750,000
Animal production except for cattle & chicken/eggs — $750,000
Cattle feedlots — $2.5M
Chicken/egg production — $12.5M
Forestry & logging — $7M
Fishing — $4M
Irrigation, sewage, water supplies — $7M
Housing construction — $33.5M
Heavy and civil engineering construction — $33.5M
Dredging and cleanup — $20M
Concrete, framing, and other housing contractors — $14M
Car dealers — $23-29M
RV, motorcycle, & boat dealers — $7M
Furniture, hardware, clothing & sporting good stores — $7M
Electronic stores — $9M
Supermarkets, gas stations & department stores — $27M
Pharmacies — $7MThere are many more examples at the link. In addition, most of the industries in the Table […] are considered small businesses based on their total number of employees instead of average annual receipts. In those industries, the cut-off between small and large businesses ranges from 500-1,000 employees per business/industry.
It’s difficult for me to imagine a business that has 50 or more employees (let alone 500-1,000) that has receipts of less than $250,000 per year. And, given the SBA definitions of “small business,” it seems likely that many small businesses in a wide range of industries have receipts of more than $250,000 per year.
So, like I said, nobody knows, and Obama isn’t telling where he got his figures.
Official misconduct? Who cares?
The big story now is that Aaron Schock notarized back-dated documents for his father seven years ago. The story states that neither “Schock or his parents benefited financially from using the incorrect date,” but that nevertheless, “using an incorrect date would be misconduct. Under the Illinois Notary Public Act, knowingly committing official misconduct is a Class A misdemeanor. Doing it through recklessness is a Class B misdemeanor.”
Schock’s response to the Journal Star when asked about it:
Schock told the Journal Star the information, released just weeks before the Nov. 4 primary, likely is the work of his “political opposition trying to paint me in a bad light.”
“Obviously, perception is everything and as a public official I have always worked hard and done my best both in public office and in private business. When you enter the public arena everything you do and say regardless of whether it pertains to public office is scrutinized. This is a case in point example of that,” Schock said.
I thought about exploring whether this issue is just political mudslinging or if it really does expose Schock’s character. But then I remembered that nobody cares.
We have a candidate for the 92nd district, Jehan Gordon, who shoplifted, was fined, but then didn’t pay the fine for several years — not until she was running for office. And yet she was nominated by the voters over Allen Mayer.
Schock earlier in his campaign had advocated selling obsolete nuclear weapons to Taiwan to try to intimidate China; he initially stood by his statement, then said it was a joke, then eventually said it was a mistake. And yet he was nominated by voters over Jim McConoughey and John Morris.
So official misconduct as a notary public seven years ago? Whoop-de-do. That won’t even be a blip on voters’ radar screens.
Biden wins debate; Palin does okay
Tonight was the big debate between vice presidential candidates Joe Biden (D) and Sarah Palin (R). Expectations were low for Palin because she’s looked pretty bad in recent television interviews — especially the one with Katie Couric. That worked to her benefit; she only had to do okay for her performance to be perceived as successful.
And Palin did, in fact, do okay. She stuck to her talking points. She dodged some questions. At times, she had some good, substantive responses. At other times, she tried to make up for lack of substance with excessive colloquial language (although, in fairness, some say that’s “Sarah being Sarah”). Most of the time, her answers sounded rehearsed, and she repeated a lot of stump-speech lines that are, frankly, getting moldy. But, she held her own and didn’t implode. And she got better as the debate progressed. Well done.
Joe Biden was expected to do well in this debate, and he did. He has had lots of experience debating in the U. S. Senate, and it showed. He looked confident and comfortable. His answers were substantive and he had a lot of good sound bites I’m sure we’ll be hearing in the news the next several days. He connected with the viewer. He showed emotion, such as when he talked about knowing what it’s like to be a single parent. You felt, as a viewer, like what he said was genuine. Not that he did everything right, but he came across very polished and at ease. He certainly reiterated a lot of talking points as well.
Now, I’m writing this while watching the post-debate punditry, and they appear to all be giving Palin much better marks than I just did. Perhaps I’m still tainted by the horrible showing she had in those CBS interviews. Or maybe I just hadn’t lowered my expectations as much as everyone else had, so I’m a little more disappointed.
I think the bottom line is, she did no harm tonight. I don’t think this debate changed anything in the campaign — i.e., it didn’t help or hurt it. It won’t give the Republicans or the Democrats a bounce, but will likely just reinforce voters’ feelings. And I guess that makes it a success.
LaHood photo under scrutiny
The Peoria Times-Observer reports:
The use of a photograph in political ads for Darin LaHood, the Republican candidate for Peoria County State’s Attorney, has promoted an inquiry by the office of the Peoria County State’s Attorney’s office at the request of Peoria Heights Police chief Dustin Sutton.
Sutton requested the state’s attorney’s office look into the matter after the Peoria Times-Observer brought elections ethics law to Sutton’s attention.
Click on the link to read the whole article. The law that the Times-Observer cited is essentially the state government’s version of the local ordinance Gary Sandberg used to insist that Aaron Schock should pay back the City of Peoria for costs related to Schock’s fundraiser with President Bush. A couple of things to note:
- Any violation of this law would be against the “governmental entity” — in this case the Peoria Heights Police Department — and not Darin LaHood.
- Clearly, Kevin Lyons needs to recuse himself from this case immediately since a more obvious conflict of interest could not be conceived. Lyons is running against LaHood for State’s Attorney. The Peoria Heights Police endorsed LaHood for State’s Attorney. If Lyons takes action against their appearance in his opponent’s political ad, it would be perceived as nothing less than political payback.
If there’s been a violation of the law, it should definitely be dealt with, the sooner the better — but NOT by the Peoria County State’s Attorney office. They should recuse themselves because of conflict of interest and have a neighboring county’s State’s Attorney (e.g., Stewart Umholtz in Tazewell County) take care of this.