As Eric mentioned yesterday, Gael Tarleton, who is challenging incumbent Port of Seattle Commissioner Bob Edwards, admitted to using her UW e-mail account to promote her candidacy, a serious violation of state campaign finance rules.
Edwards campaign sent me some of the e-mails.
I don't think Edwards has been doing the best job of oversight at the Port. I voted for Tom McCann in the primary and I had been inclined to vote for Tarleton in the general -- until I learned of this. In addition to the impropriety of using UW resources in her campaign, the e-mail themselves are unflattering. Her main interest in the Port Commission seems to be that it would be an "entry point" into a political career, with a large "voter base" that would be "an excellent base to the foundation for future scenarios", and that because it's a part-time non-partisan position, the UW would keep her on its payroll (even though, I imagine, the Port Commission is enough of a time commitment that it would be hard to serve adequately while performing adequately in a full time job elsewhere). I'd rather have a Commissioner who is more interested in the Port itself.
She also e-mails that she was working with a campaign treasurer who "does nothing but compliance with campaign regulations and financing". Wonder if he advised her about the prohibitions on using government facilities in the campaign.
Ironically, Tarleton's mailer describes her as an ethics expert!
This is will be one of the many races this year where, with regret, I write-in "None of the Above".
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 04, 2007 04:35 PM | Email ThisWell, how about starting a petition drive to put a "none of the above" choice in every race and issue on the ballot. Any candidate failing to beat "none of the above" would be banned from running for elected office for 2 years. If none of the candidates beat "none of the above," a special election would be held with all new candidates. The election would be funded by confiscating the remaining campaign funds of the contestants from the previous race.
Any ballot measure failing to beat "none of the above" would be considered defeated.
Posted by: rbb on October 4, 2007 05:49 PMYou really think? I mean, if she didn't send these email through her UW account do you really think she wouldn't have been able to do so through a private account?
I'm not dismissing the transgression, it just hardly seems like it makes a whole heck of a lot of difference or changed anything. She's admitted she did this and reported herself. It isn't like she's denying it.
Posted by: Daniel K on October 4, 2007 06:42 PMBob Edwards was recently fined by the PDC for filing his campaign finance report for the 2003 general election some 1,262 days late:
http://web.pdc.wa.gov/archive/compliance/results/pdf/2007/ResultsofSept142007BriefEnforcementHearing.pdf
Posted by: Richard Pope on October 4, 2007 07:13 PMDid it comply with the UW computing policy?
Was it done on non-paid time?
What a dipwad.
None of the above wins again.
Posted by: The Geezer on October 4, 2007 07:18 PMCheck yourself, but they can redact the cell number. They CANNOT redact the email addy.
Whoever got the disclosure may want to know.
The Geezer has spaketh
Posted by: The Geezer on October 4, 2007 07:23 PMI believe that would be unconstitutional. If the people want a particular candidate, they have a right to petition to get that candidate on the ballot, unless that candidate is exempted by term limits or by virtue of having done something wrong. Simply not getting enough votes is not doing something "wrong."
While you think you are punishing the candidate, you're really taking away the right of the people to choose their representatives.
Luigi @ 6: if he really can't in good conscience vote for any candidate on the ballot, how is it a cop-out to not vote for any of them? That makes no sense at all. Neither does your assertion that he should recommend a candidate or keep quiet. None of that makes any sense at all. And sure, one of the candidates will win almost surely, but so what? Why should that obligate him to pick one of them?
Michael H @ 7: true. But I think Daniel has a good point anyway: that this is not the worst of crimes. It didn't give her a significant advantage, and would not have had any positive impact on the race that she could not have had, if she'd done it properly. But you're right: what she did is wrong, regardless of whether it had any significance, and we should require our elected officials to not only know the law, but follow it.
Every year, editorialists ponder the meaning of election outcomes. But ponder this: if you people sit on your thumbs, a lying, cheating, CIA operative wealthy on blood money, will likely win. And why? Because of morons who waste their vote.
So vote for Bob Edwards. Don't you think that after getting the shit kicked out of hi, for supporting Dinsmore, that he's learned a thing or 6? Bob Edwards actually cares about what's going on at the port. He's not looking to run for Congress, or governor, or county exec. Bob Edwards actually wants to be at the Port. All the actions he took in his previous elected office were about doing the right thing for our region, not for his political career.
Gael Tarleton needs to be sent away; maybe SAIC can "take care" of her the way they take care of foreign operatives who get out of line. What an embarrassment.
Posted by: Gael Force Abuse on October 8, 2007 12:13 PM