The original city council agenda reported that President Bush’s visit to Peoria to raise funds for congressional candidate Aaron Schock cost taxpayers $13,195.63. That included police overtime and some miscellaneous expenses.
At last night’s council meeting, we learned that the tab is now $38,252. Adding to the cost are public works costs ($11,538 for 30 public works trucks used “for security purposes”) and fire department manpower ($3,218). I’ll try to get a copy of all the costs and post it.
But we may not be done tabulating the costs. Even the $38,000 figure doesn’t include the hours that police, public works, and other departments spent planning for the event. All this money comes out of Peoria taxpayers’ pockets.
One more thing — it violates city code:
Sec. 2-335(c). Employees shall not use city stationery, office equipment or other city resources for personal or political purposes.
Sec. 2-336. Prohibited political activities.
(a) City employees shall not intentionally perform any prohibited political activity during any compensated time (other than vacation, personal, or compensatory time off). City employees shall not intentionally misappropriate any city property or resources by engaging in any prohibited political activity for the benefit of any campaign for elective office or any political organization.
(b) At no time shall any executive or legislative branch constitutional officer or any official, director, supervisor, or city employee intentionally misappropriate the services of any city employee by requiring that city employee to perform any prohibited political activity (i) as part of that employee’s city duties, (ii) as a condition of city employment, or (iii) during any time off that is compensated by the city (such as vacation, personal, or compensatory time off).
Sec. 2-337. Prohibited political activity defined.
Prohibited political activity means:
(1) Preparing for, organizing, or participating in any political meeting, political rally, political demonstration or other political event.
I don’t know how the codes could be any clearer. A July 24, 2008, Journal Star article states that Schock’s fundraising event was “purely political,” which is the reason why Schock’s campaign had to pay back “costs associated with flying into Peoria on Air Force One and all costs for food, flowers and rentals at the Weaver Farm event.”
So let’s recap — the fundraising event was undeniably political in nature. The preparation, organization, and execution of city services for such a political event is prohibited according to city codes. However, the city has provided those services anyway (in violation of its own code) at a cost of $38,000+ without even asking the Schock campaign to reimburse the taxpayers.
Meanwhile, the Schock campaign isn’t offering to reimburse the taxpayers either. Is this an example of the kind of “service” a Congressman Schock will be providing to his district? Sticking local taxpayers with the bill for an event that personally benefits him, even as he reimburses the federal government for the same event?
A motion to bill Schock’s campaign for these costs was deferred until the next council meeting. Voting against the deferral: Councilmen Eric Turner, Patrick Nichting and Jim Montelongo.
Sorry, but I think you fell for Councilman Sandberg’s misdirect too much. He made his point eloquently but I don’t think he’s got the legal legs to stand on. (note – I’m not a member of the legal profession either).
Those prohibitions make it illegal for a City employee to persue personal political activity, or political activity on the behalf of a candidate they support. None of the City employees mentioned prepared for, organized, or participated in any political activity.
They prepared for, organized and participated in providing security for the President of the United States.
Prohibited activity would have included:
setting up for the event;
selling tickets the event;
organizing the luncheon;
etc….if done while on duty and with City resources.
None of these happened.
Despite your positions on Schock, I hope upon further reflection you don’t buy this arguement hook line and sinker.
If the City Attorney rules differently, I’ll reconsider my views.
So if they were against defering, what was their alternate proposal? That the campaign be immediately billed or that the campaign be not billed at all. Anyone know?
Turner and Montenlongo served on Schocks fundraising team during the primary. I received letters from the Schock team with their names on it.
Turner and Montenlogo should be abstaining on the issue altogether.
The security provided by the city was because of the politicial event.
Thanks, JB.
Peo Proud — You can’t separate this from the purpose of the event. The federal government recognizes that it was a “purely political” event, as evidenced by the fact that the Schock campaign is required to reimburse federal taxpayer expenses for things such as the use of Air Force One. So, at the federal level, the candidate pays, but at the local level, the taxpayer pays. Why the double-standard? If this is a legitimate taxpayer expense, then why did the Schock campaign have to reimburse the federal government for the President’s visit?
If this is a “purely political” visit, how can you say the preparations for it are not part of planning and organizing Schock’s event? That’s exactly what it was. The federal government recognizes that, and so should the local government.
C. J.’s arguments seem sound to me–this was a purely political visit. Besides,
the public was not invited, etc.
Let me clarify:
I’m not arguing that the event wasn’t entirely political nor that the campaign shouldn’t reimburse the City for some services provided.
However, I think it’s a stretch of logic to argue that the City employees were in violation of a City ordinance that (IMHO) doesn’t cover the situation at all. Saying they were involved in political activity when they were providing security for the President is not accurate and I think the reliance on this ordinance to make the larger point (that the campaign should reimburse the city) detracts from the point trying to be made.
There are many dignitaries that are provided security or related serviced by the City staff when they come to town.
I guess I’m confused about who you want to charge with official misconduct for these alleged code violations? Which “city employee” committed the violations? The city can asked to be reimbursed by the Schock campaign, but if they don’t want to contribute, how could they be made to pony up? Also, as has been pointed out, the city expenses were for “security” for the president of the United States. Are you suggesting that the city should not have provided any security because the President was here for Schock’s fundraiser? I’m not a Bush fan, nor a Schock fan, but I say give it a rest. The same city that pays some clowns $30k to design a logo is going to kvetch about providing security to the President of the United States?!
dd — No, no one is saying that the President of the United States shouldn’t have been provided security. That’s not the issue. The issue is over who pays for that security. If it’s for a “purely political” event, then I believe the candidate should pay. So does the federal government, evidently. It’s just the local government that thinks we should provide those services pro bono even though the President’s visit is for the sole personal benefit of a congressional candidate.
As for who is responsible for “official misconduct,” I would guess that, under Sec. 2-336(b), it would be whichever “executive or legislative branch constitutional officer or any official, director, supervisor, or city employee” made the decision to “misappropriate the services of any city employee by requiring that city employee to perform any prohibited political activity (i) as part of that employee’s city duties….” I have no idea who that would be.
But the point of this is not to say someone should be charged with a crime, but to point out (a) first and foremost, that the campaign should reimburse the city, and (b) that there are laws on the books prohibiting the city from paying for these sorts of things, so it’s not like they’re making up a new policy just to stick it to Schock. The policy is already established. The city simply needs to follow it.
C.J., I don’t see how providing security for the President of the United States would ever be “misappropriating” city funds or services. If the Pres comes to Peoria, for whatever reason, the City has to provide some assistance with security, regardless of his purpose for visting. (By the way, would the President of the United States, whoever he/she is ever come to Peoria for other than purely political purposes. Do you think that Bush came here the last time cuz he heard the dry whole wheat toast at Sterling Family Rest. was out-of-this-world?) I can see where the federal gov’t doesn’t want AirForceOne shuttling the Pres all over the place for political purposes at taxpayer expense but I don’t think that is the same here. If the Prez comes to your town – even if its just to have tea with Dave and Zan – you have to make sure he gets in and out of town in one piece.
Speaking of the last time Bush was here, did the city send CAT a bill for that CAT Rah-Rah Rally that Bush attended?
sometimes CJ I think your are Gary Sandburg in disguise. You sound just like him.
I was told by a 100% reliable source that the vehicles were parked there as a barrier against a terrorist car bomb driving onto the property, in to the crowd and detonating. They were not placed there so that people couldn’t “see in”. Unfortunately, these measures are a sad fact of life post 9/11. Imagine for a moment these headlines:
“1,500 Peorians dead as a result of concerns over city ordinance violations”
I’ll say once again that whatever the city decides, it will have profound and far-reaching consequences.
Apparently, taxpayers don’t even get reimbursed the total cost of the President’s travel, and there are a number of loopholes:
Taxpayers pay for Bush’s campaign travel
Dem or GOP, it makes no difference. Politicians always look out for their own best interests and the public be damned. They all will waste tax dollars whenever possible and do a job on the taxpayers. Mr. Schock should have to pay for the COP’s cost to hold his event.
I don’t know how many different ways I can say it, Diane. No one is saying that the President shouldn’t have been protected. It’s a matter of who pays for that protection. See, there are two things here: (a) providing security, and (b) paying for security. We all agree on (a). I think the President should be protected when he comes to Peoria. We should definitely provide whatever protection is required by the Secret Service to keep the Chief Executive safe from harm, including terrorists who drive car bombs and other possible threats. But that protection costs money in fuel and manpower. Now, the money can come from a couple of different sources. The taxpayers can pay for it, or the campaign can pay for it. You are arguing that the taxpayers should pay for it. I’m arguing that the campaign should pay for it. Nobody is arguing that the security shouldn’t be provided. Is that clear enough yet? Or do I need to draw a picture?
CJ, from the article you cited:
“Bush is not the first president to operate this way. The federal regulations governing reimbursement for political travel have been on the books at least since the Reagan administration, and the White House said Bush adheres to all rules. * * * the system is likely to remain for the foreseeable future – mostly because both Democrats and Republicans have benefited, leaving little will on either side to change it.”
Again, did CAT pay Peoria or EP for the security provided so Bush could cheerlead for CAT. I really don’t see a difference between CAT and Schock (a point we’ll be reminded of many times in the future).
How many times does someone have to say that there is no way the city can make the campaingn pay for security, any more than the city could send anybody (see CAT, above) a bill for providing police protection. Providing police protection is a function of government and you can’t bill someone for it. How can you single out “political” events and not other private events? And don’t cite the misapproriation ordinance – it doesn’t apply. When President Obama comes to visit some community activists in Peoria in the next four years, I hope no one tries to send them a bill. Too much time talking about this – not enough about the really important issues.
dd — The Cat visit was an official visit, not a campaign/personal visit. The President used Cat as a backdrop to make a speech about national economic policy and he didn’t stump for any particular candidate or himself. You’re comparing apples and oranges.
You can single out political events easily — the same way the White House does. If the White House requires the candidate to reimburse some of the expense of the trip, then I think the local government should have the same right. Why shouldn’t they?
Look, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this. You see this as a legitimate use of taxpayer funds, and I see it as a misappropriation of taxpayer funds to solely benefit a congressional campaign.
Hope you don’t mind that I post a link to a new post here:
http://peoriarocks.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-sandberg-applying-double-standard.html
C.J. – I can understand most of your point. However, I still think you’re wrong on the applicability of the ordinance you cite as support (and that was referenced by Sandberg). I think an appropriate legal opinion on that ordinance would indicate that it NOT applicable to the case at hand.
… and if you don’t want to read my blog, just see this link, and draw your own conclusions.
http://www.peoriamagazines.com/gallery/2006/obama-endorses-koehler
CJ
I hardly ever say this or even think this often…but I AGREE with you all the way. The President should be protected, however, if the public has to pay, then the entire event should have been open to the public at a reasonable PRICE! or FREE! That clearly wasn’t the case.
JB
JB
CJ, your right that we will just have to agree to disagree on this and I wasn’t going to post further on this – until I saw the Vespa post about Obama’s visit to support Koehler. I want Obama to come to Peoria just as much as I’d like Bush to stay home. Let’s just let all these national politicans come to Peoria to schlep for Schock, CAT, Koehler, whomever, without trying to bill ’em for police protection. Peoria doesn’t need its own grassy knoll as a tourist attraction.
Hopefully Diane will allow my comment on her blog – we’ll see. But I want to make the same points here
1. Obama’s visit to endorse Koehler was free and open to the public. I was there. It was by the Lincoln statue in front of the county courthouse. Anyone could have walked up and watched.
2. NO ONE asked for money at the Obama event. No one was charged any money to be there. As a fundraising professional – we have to follow a whole slew of regulations when we have someone appear at our events – political or otherwise – in terms of paying them appropriately, or accounting for their expenses as a gift in kind, etc, etc, etc. Given that Bush was here to raise money for Schock – and given that his own office, the executive branch – was required to ask for reimbursement for the travel expenses so that the President’s trip would not be looked upon as a donation/gift in kind to the Aaron Schock campaign – the same rules and regulations should apply to the city of Peoria.
Wow! I was going to make a further point about Bush’s last trip here to Caterpillar, and how Cat has it’s own security, and how that was a semi-public event – but I don’t have to now.
It is common knowledge and certainly law, if not city ordinance, than with the IRS (though I cannot name the specific regulation), that when a politician is attending a fundraising event – they must be paid or reimbursed for their expenses – otherwise the money that said politician’s office pays for travel and for the politician’s time at said fundraiser can be considered a gift to that particular organization.
Now, many politicians do donate their presence and travel expenses to fundraisers as gifts to said organization. This is indeed legal and common practice. And imho, when it’s for the United Way or a food bank or whatever – is awesome.
But, the City of Peoria’s expense for security and otherwise, for the President’s visit, was to support Schock’s fundraiser event. Ipso facto, or whatever the legal term is, the city of Peoria donated to Aaron Schock’s campaign. Otherwise, why did Schock’s campaign reimburse the President and his office for their time and travel – but not the City of Peoria?
SO actually, the City of Peoria is breaking the law in that they donated to Aaron Schock’s campaign, as CJ has stated. And Schock’s campaign is breaking the law in expecting the City of Peoria to spend money supporting his fundraising event. If this had been an event where the two politicians spoke to the general public in an open event – all this would be moot.
But the event was not free, nor was it open to the public. It was a fundraiser. And fundraising regulations require reimbursement for time and travel or the expense of time and travel IS, for sure, in the law, considered a gift to the campaign. Period.
CJ,
This is my response to Mrs. Vespa blog entry.
Mrs. Vespa,
If “all over town” is 419 Fulton Street, I’m surprised you are a productive realtor. Look, I received two calls from Peorian’s the weekend after thee FUNDRAISER. Both persons were upset with the Public Works trucks. Perhaps you think that it is my responsibility to “blow off” those concerns like your state and federal representives blow off the concerns of people, but my philosophy is to be responsive to citizens. Perhaps that is why unlike you and your candidates for office, I don’t have fundraisers and in the last 12 years have spent less than $300 on election ads and another $2500 total on signs. Mrs. Vespa, I am one who beleives it is the offensive money in politics that gets unresponsive,, do nothing but raise money for the next election candidates and feeds the special interest politics of Washington, Springfield and even to Peoria. Apparently, you and your beliefs are contrary to that philosophy.
Now to the Obama event that you have established as the double standard. If you were concerned, maybe you should have contacted your representative or even myself at the time. I have no idea if there was any “security protection”, but certainly there probably was some crowd control. I was there as it was the desire that anytime a US Senator is at an event in Peoria, the Peoria City Council should be represented. I have attended three events in that capacity, the largest being that one you describe as my double standard. The other two were events along the riverfront and in both cases, Sen Obama did not even have a police escort, let alone a security detail from PPD and certainly I missed as I did for the Obama/Koehler event, the guantlet of 25-30 tandem trucks that were provided with your tax dollars for security. I also did not see, but apparently you did or your paparazzi did the Fire Department and equipment present. Again there was probably officers present for crowd control which if I would have had a citizen raise the issue I would have gladly pursued those costs, but I guess in my focusing on where were the “lurking tandem trucks” were hiding, I missed the crowd control. OOOOOOppppppppsss ( a realtor term ) it’s only your president that needs the protection afforded by 25-30 tandem trucks to protect him from Central Illinois. An NO Mrs. Vespa, W is NOT my president as I am NOT on the US Supreme Court where W was selected. I prefer the more traditional process before money took over the election process, I want to elect my President.
Next time give me a call instead of your republican cronies who are muscle bound because they don’t want to piss off anyone or offend a possible contribution in their next $40,000 to $60,000 election for City Council while I reuse my yard signs and as last time spend $0.00.
So Gary is an advocate of a few hundred random strangers electing the president as happens with the electoral college? 🙂
I guess we don’t need that legal opinion from corporate counsel after all. Looks like we got one from Cara, Esq. and Gary, Esq.
I’ll probably confuse the issue considerably by being too simplistic, but don’t both Ray LaHood and Obama represent Illinois in Washington, D.C? So shouldn’t they both be welcome here any time–in that capacity, as was the case in Obama’s visit before he was running as a presidential candidate? Of course, any time there is a public gathering in Peoria there is some sort of crowd control, right? I’m just learning from this conversation who pays for such control and when. Obama was here to campaign for Koehler. My guess is that LaHood at some time would have come to campaign for a Republican candidate. Would the city provide crowd control at both events equally? I would assume in those cases that neither LaHood or Obama would be responsible for paying for the police at these events. Right or wrong?
Excellent Mr Sandberg. Excellent. Too bad some heads are too thick to take your post in but what the heck. Excellent none the less.
I am just trying to figure out how the city came up with $11,538 for 30 public works trucks to be parked for an afternoon?
Hum if the prices for said event were ….
$38,000 divided by $500.00 = 76 attendees
$38,000 divided by $5,000.00 (per photograph) =
7.6 photographs
or whatever combination.
Taxpayers would not have any expenses unless Bush came to fundraise for Schock. Period.
If the Feds require Schock to pay up — so should the City of Peoria. Period.
So Gary, in your classicly understated way, you appear to be angry at “muscle bound” over-financed city council candidates. You campaign approach mirrors Merle Widmers, no fundraising, lots of signs, lots of public imput. However, I’m just trying to figure out your allusion. While Barbara is pretty svelt, I’d hardly consider her as muscle-y (Dave may have a different perspective). Most of the rest are more ‘rubenesque” including nichting, spears, turner, gully and jacob, who haven’t seen their toes in a while. That leaves Manning, Montelongo and Spain (and of course our hunky mayor). So Gary, who, pray tell, has your ire?
That’s gonna leave a mark…
Call me stupid (or not, please), but isn’t this common sense?
If W or Jimmy Carter or William Howard Taft comes to Peoria to fundraise for a Dem or Repub candidate, why in the hell would anyone expect the COP to pay for any additional costs due to the fundraiser? Wouldn’t that be the responsibility of the candidate holding the fundraiser?
I guess I’m just a simpleton.
Gary does bring up a very interesting point about local politics and campaign spending. If I recall, Schock’s war-chest was stuffed with green before Bush showed up. A-Rod still charges a fortune per plate – per photo, the area schmooze club come out [as do their checkbooks], and giggle as they get their picts with the prez.
Legal this-and-that aside, MOST of the people living in Peoria could NOT afford Schock’s little ‘Blitzkrieg Bop.’ J-Star headlines causing a lot of mumbling where I work…..
The view?
“Look at me, me, me ,me, me, me!” “I am all about helping the down trodden, food-stamp licking, urban/ghetto [minority] folks of MY district!!!!”
“GOD BLESS me AND AMERICA!”
Unfortunately…….food stamps ain’t gonna get you into this bull elephant’s party [and I mean bull sh_t].
P.S.
Would like to see a list of campaign expenditures for other area elected officials:
Mayors, town/city councils, etc.
No doubt someone has already been on the horn to springfield, IL to see how much Obama’s visit last month cost the Democratic party.
Mr. Sandberg, I replied to you on my blog.
gfalkes,
I will type slowly in hopes I can make my point. My “ire” is a system where money dictates decisions and priorities. When any politician becomes “muscle bound” because of fear that staking a position or raising an issue will cost them fundraising dollars that they are addicted to in order to win their next election. The reference to “muscle bound” was with respect to that politician being able to respond to the citizens concern, not anyone’s physical appearance. And so I don’t have to respond to suggesting that any/all Council members are drug addicts, the reference is again to the money in elections.
Money is not the solution to good governance, but it’s enemy. I am sorry that people want to select elected representative thru $500 plate dinners instead of debating the issues on the plates of the voters, energy cost and independanc; aging infastructure; education; security, defense, and foreign wars; declining value of the US dollar; rising health care; deficits and bailouts.
Money gets in the way of arriving a cost effective, productive solutions for a safe and sound future for all Americans, Illinoians, and Peorians.
Peorians, Republicans, Democrats, Green, and Independants, rely on me to bring these types of public policy issues forward for that reason. Continue to shoot at the messenger and you will eventually run out of bullets.
Just to muddy the waters a bit more…
From the House and Senate Candidates Guide: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/candgui.pdf
Chapter 3
What Is a Contribution?
A contribution is anything of value given, loaned or advanced to influence a federal election.
In-Kind Contributions
Definition:
Goods or services offered free or at less than the usual charge result in an in-kind contribution.
Chapter 5
Prohibited Sources:
Corporations, Labor Organizations, National Banks-
Campaigns may not accept contributions made from the general treasury funds of corporations, labor organizations or national banks. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, including a nonstock corporation, a trade association, an incorporated membership organization and an incorporated cooperative.
Chapter 7
Endorsements and Solicitations by Federal Candidates-
A public communication in which a federal candidate endorses, or solicits funds for, another candidate for federal or nonfederal office does not result in a contribution to the endorsing (or soliciting) candidate unless the communication promotes or supports the endorsing (or soliciting) candidate or attacks or opposes his opponent in the election.
Corporate/Labor Exceptions-
Although corporations (including incorporated trade associations and membership organizations) and labor organizations are prohibited from using their treasury funds to make contributions and expenditures in connection with federal elections,7 they are permitted to:
-Establish separate segregated funds (popularly referred to as PACs), which can support federal candidates (114.1(a)(2)(iii));
-Provide certain free legal and account- ing services to a campaign
-Allow employees, stockholders and members to make incidental use of their facilities for volunteer campaign work
-Sponsor communications to the restricted class (e.g., a corporation’s executives and stockholders and their families; a labor organization’s members and their families) that contain express advocacy and may be coordinated with a candidate; and
-Sponsor certain election-related com- munications to other employees and/or the general public as long as they do not contain express advocacy and are not coordinated with a candidate, except to the extent permitted under 11 CFR 114.4.
Chapter 10
Accepting Contributions:
General Rule-
A campaign is prohibited from knowingly accepting any contributions from prohibited sources. The treasurer of a political committee is responsible for examining all contributions to make sure they are not illegal.
I hope this gives more insight to the issue.
Memo to the Schock campaign… 2 words: East Peoria.
No need to hop on the horn, the Springfield Journal Register already covered it. Obama did get billed for the event.
http://www.sj-r.com/news/x392057090/Agencies-look-for-Obama-to-reimburse-them-60-000
Other towns have billed for political visits, not just fund raising activities.
http://www.wsbt.com/news/election/2008/17443859.html?corder=reverse
http://www.beloitdailynews.com/articles/2004/08/12/wisconsin/wis01.txt
If city code could be construed to consider police protection for a political event as “poliitcal activity,” and city code bans city funds and city personnel on city time from being involved in political activity, then the law is clear—both political fundraisers AND political rallies are illegal for city police and city workers to protect and in the case of a rally on a public street, for city workers to close that street.
That means Senator Koehler’s rally with Obama on a public street was as illegal as the polce assisting the Secret Service in protecting the President at Schock’s event. You can’t read that city code one way for the Koehler/Obama event and differently for the Schock/Bush event. Following that logic, policing a political event is either banned political activity or it is not. Doesn’t matter if the event is public,becuase it is still “political” which Gary Sandberg says is banned by city code.
So all you hypocrites who come down one way on political events open to the public but a different way on fundraisers are having that interpretation of city code both ways.
City code doesn’t differentiate the size of an event, it just bans political activity. Both the Obama rally and the Bush visit had large crowds.
Now, regarding city council members recusing themselves from the vote, no one has a bigger conflict than Bill Spears who is still bitter about the thrashing Schock gave him in 2006.
Sandberg and Van Auken were at the Obama rally where they witnessed city personnel and police setting up and policing the event. Shouldn’t that have set off bells in their heads about illegal use of city funds? You know streets just don’t close themselves.
And why does one candidate get permission to close a downtown city street? Is that something available to every candidate? Or just a candidate who will have Sandberg, Van Auken and Spears in attendance?
Why should one political candidate be allowed to inconvenience many citizens by closing a public street for his political event? Why didn’t Koehler and Obama go rent a room at the Civic Center? They chose instead a venue that used a good deal of city workers to set up and police. Under the logic of Sandberg that was an illegal city contribution to Koehler.
City code does not different that police can keep people safe at political events Gary Sandberg attends but not at political events he doesn’t attend.
That makes him a bone fide hypocrite.
Diane Vespa’s defense of “Schock and Awe’s” private and financially exclusionary fund raiser at public expense amounts to both an unfunded mandate and a “back door” non-legislated tax to pay and provide security for “Shrub’s” transportation and security detail.
Democratic presidents are just as guilty of abusing the “Office of the President” for tightly focused political fund raising efforts. The difference here lays in the self-sanctimonious “fiscally responsible, less government and less taxes” mantra of the right that has sent this country in the opposite direction these last eight years. The distinction is: “…government by the people, for the people…” versus government “bought” by a few people. If the law states “Little Shrub” should pay the feds back, then it ain’t a leap of brain power to understand that state and local governments should be reimbursed as well.
It’s the least Schock can do for bringing what will most likely be accredited as the worst presidential administration in modern U.S. history to Peoria.
Public funding of elections would make this whole debate mute, be more economical and provide better candidates and greater opportunities for office holders to actually do the job they were elected to do.
Great comments C.J., cara, fka cgiselle12 and new voice.
I don’t always agree with you Mr. Sandberg, but on this issue you are 100% correct!
Thanks, gfalkes but my last (and final) bid for office I only put up 12 old signs. One at each of 11 precints and one at a friend who demanded a sign in his yard.
Check my recent blog for my personal museum funding stance.
City Street,
I do not disagree that if additional City Services provided for the event at Peoria County Courthouse for State Sen. cabdidate Koehler,those costs sgould and shall be born by that campaign. Maybe you saw the tandem trucks and photoed them along with the Peoria Fire Department equipment and extra police . I have no problem asking what was provided and who paid for it and it will be my position that it is the candidate’s responsibility and that is candidate Koehler. My memory is somewhat fuzzy, but I beleive that Barack drove up in a SUV with a County Deputy, not a PPD escort but I am not even positive that his SUV just drove up. I just wish all those who wish to accuse me of being a hypocrite would have called with your concerns of extra-ordinary services provided and whom paid for what closer to the time of the incident so I could have. Quite frankly I don’t recall any extra-ordinary police presence, but then as I said I didn’t spot the 30 tandem trucks and Fire equipment either. Please forward any pictures correcting my mempry and I will ask if the Koehler campaign was invoiced.
I also didn’t endorse Koehler for his Senate seat and didn’t get nor as of this date have any picture(s) taken with Barack or David, individually or together——other than City Council photographs with Koehler when we were both on the City Council.
Councilman Spear’s comments at the City Council meeting suggested that there is a “difference” in a political rally and a fundraiser. After the meeting, I offered my position that the difference is dangerous and a slippery slope. I’m stupid, I guess in my simple thinking, if the event is not official government business, the event shall be charged for extra-ortdinary and non-traditional services provided by City personel. All the money raised should not go to consultants, media outlets and button makers, in other words.
Scott A. Shepler, as the Journal Star’s cartoonist, you are fresh proof of the left-wing bias in that isolated tower of rigid liberal ideology.
Unbelievable that they have one left wing fanatic cartoonist and nothing to balance that. No wonder you skewer conservatives while letting left-wing flakes off from your one-sided ridicule.
Conservative businesses and subcribers are nuts to advertise in such a biased rag.
I can’t wait til Billy Dennis’ relentless efforts to get Peoria to transition away from news on dead trees succeeds.
City Street,
The last thing you sound like is someone who is using the ‘city street’ as a soapbox.
You sound like a CEO [or CEO want-to-be] preaching from your plush office, staring at a larger than life photo of George B., with a bourbon in one hand, and a kleenex in the other. Now stop your ranting.
We must all remember that it is RARE to find a far leaning left/right, liberal/con on either side of the rope. I am middle-road Dem on most issues. On some [gun control, etc] I am quite conservative.
Don’t defend YOUR candidate to the death. Lets just see how Mr. “Nukes-In-Taiwan” weathers this one out.
Merle,
I could not find your personal museum funding stance post.
You need to be more vigilant though. Rush Limbaugh tapped into your “Peoria Watch.”
The really bad news…..
He’s dropping acid again.
City Street,
• Thanks for the cartoonist plug.
• Nice name calling.
• I am left-wing bias, thanks for that plug as well.
• “…isolated tower of ridged liberal ideology.”; good thing this country has such a striking contrast in the ease of accessibility and flexibility in Neo-Con Republican ideology.
The trouble with right wing fanatic cartoonist is most merely provide a contrarian point of view to “left wing frantic cartoonist”. Right wing fanatic cartoonist also have to spend too much of their time drawing right wing fanatic politicians caught doing contradictory behavior to their own ideology. If you know of a right wing fanatic cartoonist capable of independent and objective thought, I’m sure the Journal would love to publish them. You ever seen me draw a nice thing about Gov. Blago? You do know he’s a Democrat right?
“The press is the best instrument for enlightening the mind of man, and improving him as a rational, moral and social being”: Thomas Jefferson
“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”—”: George W. Bush
No real stretch as to which of the above quotes is attributable to your hero.
You seem very confused as to:
1. Most news media falls under conservative ownership. It is their desire to make a maximum profit, so to eliminate a significant advertising and consumer base solely on ideology is a bad business model.
2. Professional journalist and editors (of which I am not) for the most part seek to maintain a neutral reporting of the news. If you require a greater mono culture of unsubstantiated innuendo and talking points then for gosh sakes quit wasting your time on legitimate news outlets and watch Fox News all day! You’ve got no one to blame but yourself on this one Street…
“Conservative businesses and subscribers…” make a buck off of right and left consumers alike. Their “nuts” to not advertise in any medium be it a rag or web, bias or not.
Billy Dennis is just one of the multitude of forces acting on the transformation of the newspaper industry, not it’s executioner. I would guess your revulsion to the print media is that you can’t as easily delete something you can’t understand or agree with. If you think the blogosphere is going to be more friendly to conservative ideology, I’m afraid I have some bad news for ya Street…