newsobserver.com blogs

OrangeChat

How are we doing? If you have a question, complaint or suggestion about coverage of Orange and Chatham counties in The News & Observer and The Chapel Hill News, post your comments in this blog or e-mail us. Comments here may be reprinted in The News & Observer or Chapel Hill News.

Unregistered PAC flier violates election rules

Submitted by jessedeconto on 10/30/2009 - 19:27

Tags: OrangeChat

An unregistered political-action committee has mailed out a postcard promoting Town Council member Mark Kleinschmidt for mayor and painting rival Matt Czajkowski as a “divisive leader … out of sync with the progressive values Chapel Hill has worked hard to protect.”

Kleinschmidt said he did not authorize the postcard, which violated state law by failing to state that he had not endorsed it, according to Orange County Board of Elections Director Tracy Reams.

Kleinschmidt said he doesn’t know who sent it.

“I have not authorized, and I would not authorized something like this,” he said. “It doesn’t approach the campaign the way that I would.”

Czajkowski also said he did not know who sent the postcards.

We'll have more on this in Saturday's News & Observer.

Comments

يوتيوب | مطبخ

Thu, 11/12/2009 - 04:46 — DARSH33

Rules are for sissies!

Sat, 10/31/2009 - 19:06 — ActLocal

In the final round, the gloves come off, VOE or not.

They should change it from VOE to VPE

Sat, 10/31/2009 - 22:54 — elvisboy77

Voter pwned elections. If Kleinschmidt wins he will have pulled a big one over on Chapel Hill. He better hope the voters are asleep.

Classic Orange Progressive "values"

Sat, 10/31/2009 - 07:44 — elvisboy77

Mark K. can say what he wants but the fact is, someone who believes in him and wants him elected sent that postcard out, whether he asked for it or not. One more reason not to vote for him.

Don't understand

Sat, 10/31/2009 - 01:47 — ignc73

You're completely missing the point. The point of taxpayer funded elections is that everybody who participates gets a set, small pool of money to campaign with. Nobody who participates will get any money from outside organizations or special interest groups. It's a way of making elections more transparent, and less reliant on who has the deepest pockets. You know that Kleinschmidt isn't taking money from anybody. You can't say the same for the other candidates.

Would $250 really buy someone?

Sat, 10/31/2009 - 08:38 — takecareofchapelhill

No one can contribute more than $250 to someone's campaign. I see no reason for taxpayer funded elections. I don't know anyone that is running for office that can be bought for $250. Taxpayer funded elections are not necessary with this limit already in place. Again, if a mayoral candidate can't even raise their own money to run, especially after spending 8 years on the council, I don't see them worrying about taxpayer's dollars in the future.

Rules

Sat, 10/31/2009 - 07:14 — fhblack

It's important to read the ordinance. The candidates can accept outside money in limited amounts.

Taxpayer-funded Candidate

Fri, 10/30/2009 - 22:03 — takecareofchapelhill

Quite frankly, I resented taxpayers funding campaigns before this PAC flier appeared, but now I'm really angry. It really irks me when I see Mark Kleinschmidt refer to himself a "Voter-owned elections candidate", like that is some kind of great attribute. I see it a little differently - I see Kleinschmidt as a "Taxpayer-funded candidate". Any mayoral candidate that is unwilling to work hard enough to get his campaign funded by supporters (especially after 8 years on the town council), and save the taxpayers the cost, is telling us something about his future behavior (not to mention his past track record). Mark seems to think that as long as a cause is one that he believes in, then taxpayers should be willing to pay for it. And now, PAC fliers are appearing after we've paid for Mark's four color fliers. What's wrong with this picture folks? There seems to be no limit to what the taxpayers of Chapel Hill are expected to pay for. And I hope that someone gets to the bottom of these fliers. This is just wrong. Get to the polls. This will be a close one.

Good

Sat, 10/31/2009 - 08:27 — Many

points. All of them.

Values

Fri, 10/30/2009 - 20:34 — fhblack

Somebody or bodies must be very worried about what the electorate might do Tuesday. Since this campaign season, AKA "Silly Season," has seen the buzz words "Chapel Hill values" tossed around so much by Mr. Kleinschmidt and his campaign, it's interesting that somebody or bodies would so blatantly break the law to advocate for him because they believe he represents the "progressive values Chapel Hill." Following the rules is a value that I support. I hope breaking the laws of NC is not seen as a means to an end by those responsible.

BTW, how is the VOE system working and what about all of those pre-election campaign reports it requires to help us evaluate the candidates?

OrangeChat

Unregistered PAC flier violates election rules

Comments

Comment viewing options

يوتيوب | مطبخ

Rules are for sissies!

They should change it from VOE to VPE

Classic Orange Progressive "values"

Don't understand

Would $250 really buy someone?

Rules

Taxpayer-funded Candidate

Good

Values

Campaign reports

Yes, I Know

Cars View All

Jobs View All

Homes View All

Jesse Deconto

Unregistered PAC flier violates election rules

Comments

Comment viewing options

Jesse Deconto

Want to post a comment?