Ethics filing for anti-recall group

| | Comments (3)

Tulsans for Election Integrity (TFEI) today filed their C-1 form, Campaign Contributions and Expenditures Report, with the Tulsa City Clerk's office. The shadowy pro-recall group, Coalition for Reprehensible Government 2004, has not yet filed. The law that controls ethics reporting for municipal, county, and school board elections is the Political Subdivisions Ethics Act, Oklahoma Statutes Title 51, Chapter 6 (sections 301 to 325). 314 and 315 are the sections dealing with reporting of contributions and expenditures.

TFEI, devoted to defeating the recall attempt against Councilors Jim Mautino and Chris Medlock, has raised a total of $12,148.00 and spent $2,585.90. $8,050.00 in donations came in contributions of $200 or more:

$2,500: Virginia Brubaker, Kenneth and Kyong Cha Sellers.

$1,000: Pat and Hughes Coston.

$500: Lloyd Noble, Ivan and Helen Ellsworth.

$250: Libby Nash.

$200: Dale and Kathy Whiteis, Patrick Kuykendall, Willingham Rentals, Richard and Lisa Lowry.


Anon said:

If the CRG hasn't filed today, it would seem they would have only until tomorrow (7-2, 10-days preceeding the July 12th election) to file. Since it's a Saturday (and a holiday weekend) can we assume they might be receiving a little 'special' support in order to file then?

If they don't file, is the election off?
Or, perhaps, just subject to some fine from our local juris-prejudis? In that case, being a cost of overhead.

Maybe I can pay my water bill tomorrow, too.

Anon said:

Wondering about the campaign budgets got me to thinking about how much airtime costs around here. Then, it hit me, wonder if both organizations are receiving the same rates and quotes for airtime.

...that'd be an interesting perspective.

sendoff said:

I can see the C for RG 2004 weaseling out of this requirement with the help of some "creative interpretation" of the law - like what seems to be happening rather frequently in Tulsa as of late.

For instance, in Section 315 of Title 51:

They could argue that paragraph 'A' does not apply as it is in reference to a Primary Election => Runoff Primary Election => General Election situation with a candidate vs. candidate scenario.

They could argue that paragraph 'B' does not apply as it is in reference to "propositions or measures submitted to voters". On the sample ballot from the Tulsa County Election Board site, the recall issues are listed as 'questions', not 'propositions' or 'measures'. In contrast, a Jenks bond election on the same day is listed as 'proposition'.

The 'powers that be' in Tulsa have pulled this sleight-of-hand before in several different ways. Don't assume the C for RG 2004 not filing is going to be detrimental to their cause.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on July 1, 2005 6:54 PM.

Easily amused was the previous entry in this blog.

Becoming a leaker-sensitive church is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
[What is this?]