Dang! That was a lot of money

(Click to enlarge)

Dang, was that a lot of money for the Shaw for Mayor campaign.

Comments

Anonymous said…
This post @9:51 has NOTHING to do with the topic!
Anonymous said…
The topic was money, right? What's off-topic about the comment?
Anonymous said…
Poster 9:55p again
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.
Anonymous said…
Where's the signed contracts???
Anonymous said…
PP, I'm can't believe that you didn't try and connect Adelstein to this. You blame him for everything else that involves PAC money, why not this?
PP said…
Because this one was Doug Hamilton.
Anonymous said…
Steve Rollinger. Isn't he the pyramid scheme boy? Ran his pyramid scheme while on the RC council. Got busted.

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.
Anonymous said…
What exactly does "Steve Rollinger (Mike Schumacher)" mean?
Anonymous said…
Are those catagories for real? No money for advertising and $20,000 for rent?
Anonymous said…
11:57 you have to look at the whole page, which is not posted here. The column for advertising, rent, postage, etc is only the column on the left which is blank - so those payments listed are not in any category. They are just payments to candidate(s).
Anonymous said…
12:54 OIC. Thanx.
been there said…
10:18 has a good question? What is the answer. Also, who is this Doug Hamilton who loves Mayor Shaw so much?
blawgzilla said…
1018 AM,,1159PM;

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 ?
Anonymous said…
bawlzilla -- It doesn't seem to be an amendment at all. It appears as if something was paid many months after the election and thus, would be reported on this report. I believe Hamilton has done that in the past as well, tallied up after the election to make candidates whole. I'm pretty sure he did that in 2005 for Ossenfort and Kriebel and I think he may have done the same for some Mayoral candidates in 2003, but I could be wrong.
blawgzilla said…
8:27 am

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 ?

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th