A challenge from Stan's employee
Part of Kati Jenkins duties at Northwestern Engineering must be to defend her boss, Stan Adelstein. Because just moments ago, she issued this challenge to me under the post I did yesterday...
Click on either of the images to enlarge, or you can go review my source - the actual filing - here.
Sure. Don Frankenfeld's name might be on the PAC, but when I see that Stan was the sole donor - guess what - I think I'm pretty safe in my position that it might be considered Stan's PAC.
Especially in light of the fact that the PAC's donations seemingly had nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with supporting Stan's slate of candidates - Tom Katus, his handpicked Democratic choice for his seat. Teresa Spry, the Democrat running against his arch nemesis Bill Napoli, and for Dennis Finch, the Democrat who was running against Dennis Schmidt (who turned out Stan's fellow MAINstream founder, JP Duniphan).
But of course, the PAC was all about abortion. (insert rolling of eyes here).
Unfortunately, I've been fighting this battle on this website since before last year. At one time, Stan made a lot of donations that no one would question, and I even worked with candidates who - very graciously and thankfully - got money from him. But soon after that, those donations seemed to take a darker turn.
Donations would go from one PAC through another - for no conceivable reason other than to obfuscate the source. And then they went from playing favorites in open primary contests to openly favoring defeating Republicans. I have a problem with this, and so do many others. In fact (as in the post below) Stan's playing with PAC was the genesis of legislators being forced to deal with campaign finance reform.
Getting back to the point: So Kati - you're trying to tell us all this this wasn't Stans' PAC? Despite him being the sole donor, and it being spent solely for his friends and against his political enemies?
Keep on spouting the company line.
Kati Jenkins has left a new comment on your post "More RC Mayor Stuff - On the net, and in the paper...":Read that here as she falsely assumes I have no idea what I'm talking about. My response?
You are incorrect in your story, PP. "Nix on Six PAC" is not Stan Adelstein's PAC. Check your source again.
Click on either of the images to enlarge, or you can go review my source - the actual filing - here.
Sure. Don Frankenfeld's name might be on the PAC, but when I see that Stan was the sole donor - guess what - I think I'm pretty safe in my position that it might be considered Stan's PAC.
Especially in light of the fact that the PAC's donations seemingly had nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with supporting Stan's slate of candidates - Tom Katus, his handpicked Democratic choice for his seat. Teresa Spry, the Democrat running against his arch nemesis Bill Napoli, and for Dennis Finch, the Democrat who was running against Dennis Schmidt (who turned out Stan's fellow MAINstream founder, JP Duniphan).
But of course, the PAC was all about abortion. (insert rolling of eyes here).
Unfortunately, I've been fighting this battle on this website since before last year. At one time, Stan made a lot of donations that no one would question, and I even worked with candidates who - very graciously and thankfully - got money from him. But soon after that, those donations seemed to take a darker turn.
Donations would go from one PAC through another - for no conceivable reason other than to obfuscate the source. And then they went from playing favorites in open primary contests to openly favoring defeating Republicans. I have a problem with this, and so do many others. In fact (as in the post below) Stan's playing with PAC was the genesis of legislators being forced to deal with campaign finance reform.
Getting back to the point: So Kati - you're trying to tell us all this this wasn't Stans' PAC? Despite him being the sole donor, and it being spent solely for his friends and against his political enemies?
Keep on spouting the company line.
Comments
Plus, if you think making fun of Kati Jenkins is cool, you're the biggest creep on the planet. Have you met her? She's a bonafide cowgirl angel.
I see you're not letting the facts get in the way of your argument.
The Roger Hunt thing is over whether or not a corporation has to file. (not a PAC) And that one is as clear as mud. That's why it's under litigation.
And I'm sure Kati is a good friend and a nice person. Where was I making fun of her? She challenged me, and I responded to her challenge. It's called debate.
PP you are the best and don't ever stop telling the truth.
Thank you!!
What a no-mind response.
The difference between who owns a PAC and who owns a Corp is moot point. The real issue is, who is up front and who's not.
Basically, you just said the same thing I did and then tried to pretend you said something different. Doh.
Meanwhile, Kaity Jenkins is a woman among women. I could go on, but why bother?
Judging by your chauvenist disposition, toward her, you'll never have the pleasure.
And a stupid one at that. At least the other libs know what the whole hunt thing is about.
And I'm with PP on this one. If a PAC has one donor, whoever it is, I'd say that PAC had been specifically set up for that person irregardless of whose name is on the paperwork. That should be obvious.
Irregardless IS a word in Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. Ha!
"irregardless
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."
Anyway, this is just a blog, and nonnie is... well, just nonnie, so...