Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
tecumseh
Is this you? Claim Profile »
6 months ago
in CROWDING THE LINE on The District Weekly
from the author, mr weilenga:
"The rules prohibiting political activity by non-profit agencies are old, well-known and apply to everybody."
Well, exactly, sir. Which makes you late to the party, sort of like someone at a football game who jumps on the field yelling "pass interference"...when it's a running play. If the rules are old, why is the tone of the article so smug. You discovered 501c3 campaign laws...so?
You acknowledge the law is well-known (including, presumably, to Lowenthal and Bibxy), yet you presume to educate everyone about it.
You quote a lawyer...but he's dismissing the issue. Or, dismissing it on legal grounds anyway - the area of a lawyer's expertise, yes? But you didn't like his answer, so he became, it seems, a political consultant in the next paragraph, commenting on the "appearance" of a conflict of interest, something about which he is no more necessarily an expert than are you or I.
So which is it - campaign finance law, or a future hypothetical conflict of interest? the DW is "REPORTING"?
This whole thing deserved about two column inches, on a slow day. There are real stories in this town. Why not find one?
"The rules prohibiting political activity by non-profit agencies are old, well-known and apply to everybody."
Well, exactly, sir. Which makes you late to the party, sort of like someone at a football game who jumps on the field yelling "pass interference"...when it's a running play. If the rules are old, why is the tone of the article so smug. You discovered 501c3 campaign laws...so?
You acknowledge the law is well-known (including, presumably, to Lowenthal and Bibxy), yet you presume to educate everyone about it.
You quote a lawyer...but he's dismissing the issue. Or, dismissing it on legal grounds anyway - the area of a lawyer's expertise, yes? But you didn't like his answer, so he became, it seems, a political consultant in the next paragraph, commenting on the "appearance" of a conflict of interest, something about which he is no more necessarily an expert than are you or I.
So which is it - campaign finance law, or a future hypothetical conflict of interest? the DW is "REPORTING"?
This whole thing deserved about two column inches, on a slow day. There are real stories in this town. Why not find one?
2 replies
Dave Wielenga
Actually, I was reporting both--the mass e-mailing of a letter that drew strong connections between a not-for-profit agency and a political candidate and the potential conflict-of-interest that may result. Several recipients were bothered by the e-mail, and forwarded it to me with their objections and concerns. They were members of other non-profit organizations and were offended by what they thought was a disrespectful wink at laws that are intended to protect citizens from political operatives that might try to hide behind tax-exempt status. (I have subsequently contacted other not-for-profit organizations and all have expressed discomfort or disdain for the Lowenthal/Bixby letter.) Some were also worried that Children Today might be damaged by some future e-mail. Some who support Garcia precisely because of his interest in the problem of homelessness were concerned that his effectiveness as a councilman might be diminished. Honestly, I don't understand what you are so bothered about. I simply reported the existence of the letter and the potential for breaking the law and creating a conflict-of-interest. Obviously, I did not exclude any pertinent facts; as you note, I include the attorney's evaluation of the situation, as well as Josh Lowenthal's explanation of his actions. Why does it bother you so much to have the existence of this e-mail publicized and considered?
1 year ago
in BEACHCOMBER PUBLISHER’S TRIAL OPENS; JOHN MORRIS MARKS 20 YEARS | The District Weekly on The District Weekly
The focus on "my" crime scene is silly. You're making too much of that. Collier is just expressing a feeling of responsbility and duty, something the reporters at this rag obviously cant relate to.
1 reply
Perhaps this story was much ado about nothing. However, the silence of each candidate, regarding where they stand on the city's major problems, is deafening. Voters haven't been given any specifics on what is the agenda of each candidate, and, most importantly, how they plan to pay for the items they propose.