A note from Benedict Ar... Sorry. A note from Stan Adelstein why he thinks you should vote Democrat this year.
(Click on letter to enlarge) And while it may not be printed at taxpayer expense, I don't see a disclaimer, either. When they hold the special session (supposedly at the end of November) , since he's left them already, I think his colleagues should expel him from the caucus. Sure. At that point it's only going to be symbolic. But since he's already said he's running again in the near future, sometimes symbolism is enough.
Comments
IMHO, the topic is directed towards the Rapid Mayor's race.
I have to admit that I am curious what the others spent.
I just may have to look it up if their reports are in.
I guess wierdness in RC politics is nothing new - it's been going on for years.
Just imagine all of the madcap adventures when RC has a new mayor doling out the patronage.
I will try to shed some light on the Schumacher/Rollinger entry.
This is yet another amendment to a previous report, Rollinger ran for a city council seat one year ago and he was defeated by L. Lacroix.
I can only assume Hamilton and Schumacher are having trouble keeping track of what lies they told to whom, this is from the same election that they shifted money to say Schumacher helped Kooiker, which he didnt.
this makes like 3-4 changes concerning that election and Hamiltons PAC,,, you gotta wonder how many changes before they get it right ?
It does not appear to be an amendment. I am saying it should have been an amendment. As I understand it, donations and expenses are for a particular campaign, or, for specific periods of time. The payment to Rollinger was for a period of time or election in the past, therefore, tht expenditure should have been reported as an amendment. If Hamiltons PAC had this much trouble with one election, maybe, the SOS should take a closer look ?