« MN GOP CALLS ON HATCH TO COME CLEAN ON LAC QUI PARLE DONATIONS, FILES CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINT | Home | MN GOP CALLS ON HATCH TO COME CLEAN ON LAC QUI PARLE DONATIONS, FILES CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINT #3 »
MN GOP CALLS ON HATCH TO COME CLEAN ON LAC QUI PARLE DONATIONS, FILES CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINT #2
By Michael Brodkorb | September 28, 2006
Yep – these signs look funny. It looks like somebody cut the disclaimer off the sign.
##
"'Recently, we've found Mike Hatch for Governor signs that have clearly had the disclaimer chopped off. These signs are unique and different than the standard Hatch signs that bear a disclaimer with Hatch Volunteer Committee’s information. We've attached photos of these signs and would ask the question – who printed these signs? Was it the Lac Qui Parle DFL? Was it the state DFL? Was it Hatch’s campaign committee? At whose direction were the disclaimers chopped off these signs and why?
'We'll be asking our supporters to be on the lookout for any these signs that may still retain a disclaimer, or where else in Minnesota there are doctored Hatch for Minnesota signs,' Carey concluded." Source: MN GOP press release, September 28, 2006
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 30 Comments »
30 Responses to “MN GOP CALLS ON HATCH TO COME CLEAN ON LAC QUI PARLE DONATIONS, FILES CAMPAIGN FINANCE COMPLAINT #2”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:31 PM
Oh my god. Get the FBI to drop everything in Klobegate and get them right on this important question about who cut the disclaimer off the sign in their own yard. Whomever took this picture should be brought in front of a grand jury immediatley and forced to answer to exactly what they know, and when they knew it. Then, they should be sent to Guantanamo Bay for some waterboarding to make sure they are telling the truth. Then, ship them off to Egypt to allow for some more intensive torture. Make sure this person is beaten nearly to death, so we can be sure they aren’t lying. But don’t kill them. That would be unAmerican.
September 28th, 2006 at 5:48 PM
Legitimate Question …. has anyone checked the part of the sign that has the web page address? Because these actually look like his old lawn signs from past campaigns. I thought he was just being a responsible citizen and recycling.
September 28th, 2006 at 6:28 PM
I just checked the same sign in Bloomington and the disclaimer was cut off.
This does appear to be an organized effort to cover something up.
September 28th, 2006 at 8:20 PM
Hugo Chavez (aka Raving Repeater) not only are you showing yourself to be an apologist for apparent illegal campaign finance behavior, you’re being an apologist for al Qaeda. Nice work!
I love how Democrats think they can protect America by saving a bomb and hugging a terrorist. God forbid we would capture the mastermind behind 9-11, find out what his next plot is (as well as who financed it and who was recruiting for it) and then prevent a terrorist attack from happening. Only Democrats are stupid enough to rhink that kind of strategy will achieve victory in November.
Unlike the terrorists who cut off heads while people are still alive and force journalists to convert to Islam, we do not torture people. Waterboarding is not torture. People are not physically harmed by waterboarding. People are not physically harmed by being kept awake with the Red Hot Chili Peppers music. People are not physically harmed by being cold and uncomfortable. The terrorists in Club Gitmo get health care, exercise, culturally appropriate meals and unfettered access to the Red Cross. That is not torture. People who say we are torturing terrorists are slandering our American soldiers and CIA agents who are doing the work of obtaining information and keeping us safe.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:57 PM
dorks…..he purposely printed signs in the campaign for 2002 omitting the office he was running for. check it out. guess why. duh! he f**king laughed about it to people.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:04 PM
The Kool-Aid tastes great don’t it Chris. Keep drinking what O’Reilly and Fascist News are preaching.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:23 PM
Chris-
I totally agree that torture is the best way to get information out of anyone. No doubt about it. I just prefer to think that extra step down the road about what it will mean to our people when THEY are captured. If we hold ourselves to no standards, it is really hard to demand that others do.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:46 PM
Okay, so what does is proven if the disclaimer is chopped off? What is the disclaimer supposed to say and why is it supposed to be there? I’m not familiar with the “inside baseball” of the politics business, I’m honestly curious here and wish to be informed what the infraction is and why it is serious that it is missing.
September 28th, 2006 at 10:58 PM
FACIST NEWS chris? what would that be? talk the the talk, loser. you mean FOX? that’s great crap that they put out on CNN nowdays. at least ABC did something right for a network for a change and look at all the s++t you idiots landed on them. by the way; it only pushed the polls, if you weren’t looking.
September 28th, 2006 at 11:00 PM
sorry, meant mark
September 28th, 2006 at 11:35 PM
Worried-
Looking at the top left corner of this sign, I can see how he probably IS just recycling signs from four years ago. I mean, four years ago was probably 2006 also….
September 28th, 2006 at 11:36 PM
Sorry… Top right.
September 29th, 2006 at 1:04 AM
To reference post #5 by “worried watcher”, if Hatch purchased signs in 2002, he must have one hell of a strategy. The signs have a “2006″ web address on them. That type of intelligence to plan that far in advance is worthy to note if it is at all true. I know how scary it can be when you see intelligence of that caliber, not to mention a candidate that doesn’t get tripped up by complex words like “and” and “the.”
Now let’s visit the “issue†of the signs themselves and ask one simple question:
“Are lawn signs a high campaign priority??â€
I know that many individuals need a break from the conflicts overseas, a lack luster economy, the inability for the average family being unable to put more than 0% of ANYTHING into any type of savings account, but it’s good to see that LAWNSIGNS have high billing in a campaign.
Is it the fact that this simplistic styling is worthy of our attention because Hatch is a serious contender to the standing governor, or the fact that Hatch has almost 14 lawn sings to every 1 of Pawlenty’s. This is just another random observation, since Tim Pawlenty is so cavalier about not abiding to any type of spending requirement, it begs the question of why the fuss about money? Perhaps it’s the political academic equivalent of understanding why Fred got to go with Daphne and Velma while Shaggy was always stuck with Scooby-Doo.
For all the pathetic things that can happen to people, it’s great to see that Michael Brodkorb has the desire and the skill to enthrall you all with a nice song and dance with lawn signs. Perhaps ranting about Keith Ellison has become outdated?
Mind mumbling ramblings for cake brained simpletons? If this is the extent of what we are focusing our attention on in Minnesota…we are ALL in a serious trouble!
September 29th, 2006 at 7:56 AM
Rgwsw xolora!
Lori looks like the feneric candidate with the yellow and black…
Hatch is just for Minnesota…any ofice…
Clearly does appear that teh 2006 is a stick on…
These must be saved and recycled signs that they had Marth Stewart quickly update with the stick on year.com.
Now that’s the way to save money in Minnesota campaifning.
Heck he knew he was going to run again…been planning for four years…
Mybe his rascal daughters took care of the disclaimer…so many questions here to be answered.
Looks like the touch of Martha to me. Could anyone check to see if any part of this sign is peel and stick, weather-proof of course.
September 29th, 2006 at 8:26 AM
The 2006 is NOT a stick on. Go look at one of these things, you’ll see it’s printed right on there. What the heck is Hatch trying to hide?
September 29th, 2006 at 8:40 AM
Eric,
To answer your question about the disclaimer: All lawn signs and campaign materials (including tv/radio as well) must have a disclaimer listing who paid for it and the campaign committee (candidate or party) or treasurers’ address. This way we don’t have a bunch of illegal anonymous expenditures. The fact that these Hatch signs look nothing like Hatch’s regular Governor signs and now the disclaimer has been cut off is suspicious because we don’t have any idea who paid for them. If the Lac Qui Parle committee paid for them from this slush fund and is now trying to cover their collective tails they are breaking the law. Hope that clears things up for ya.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:16 AM
go away watchman, you’re very boring.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:05 AM
There are a number of these Hatch signs up around Anoka County. All of them lack a disclaimer. In 20 years of political involvement, I have never seen signs that appear to have the disclaimer cut off.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:12 AM
Question:
If I personally pay for signs for Hatch or Pawlenty or any candidate, do I have to identify myself on the sign?
Do I need DFL or campaign approval?
Do I have to report what I spent on the sign printing to anyone?
Just curious.
tx
September 29th, 2006 at 10:23 AM
Diane,
A simple answer to your question is, yes, as far as you being the one who paid for the printing of it. I believe if the candidate gives approval for your sign, that needs to be recorded down as a contribution by you. The rest of your question could raise some interesting issues.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:32 AM
Diane,
I’m sorry, I just found this so I stand corrected.
A disclaimer is not required on lawn signs.
Mary Beth Gossman, a staff attorney with the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, said that based on an April decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals that says it is unconstitutional to require a disclaimer, their office dismisses those types of complaints.
Sorry for the confusion.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:32 AM
My neighbor just took his sign into the garage . I’ll try to snap a picture of him with his saw!
September 29th, 2006 at 10:33 AM
I stand corrected.
I’m sorry, I just found this so I stand corrected.
A disclaimer is not required on lawn signs.
Mary Beth Gossman, a staff attorney with the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings, said that based on an April decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals that says it is unconstitutional to require a disclaimer, their office dismisses those types of complaints.
Sorry for the confusion.
September 29th, 2006 at 10:39 AM
Watchman says: know that many individuals need a break from the conflicts overseas, a lack luster economy, the inability for the average family being unable to put more than 0% of ANYTHING into any type of savings account, but it’s good to see that LAWNSIGNS have high billing in a campaign.
There is no break from the conflicts “overseas”
I realize your ilk would like to bury your heads in the sand and wait till your butts are blown apart, but I prefer to face reality. Perhaps some can’t put money into savings account because they pay such high taxes , especially to education, and only have a dumbed-down kid like you to show for it. Obviously your not able to absorb the fact that our economy is booming despite you leftys.
The lawn signs are a symptom of the character of Hatch and the dim machine and thus if we have men of no character elected to public office, we get a Teddy Kennady, Billy Clinton and basically, well, the whole dimocratic party!
September 29th, 2006 at 11:16 AM
Sorry for the double post folks. After finding the comments by Ms. Gossman, I guess there really isn’t an issue with the disclaimer now is there. So not sure that Annie’s character question makes sense in this issue.
September 29th, 2006 at 11:37 AM
TITUS THERE IS AN ISSUE ! THE HATCH PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR WHO PAID FOR THESE LAWNSIGNS AND WHY THE DISCLAIMER WAS CUT OFF !
September 29th, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Jim,
First lay off the capital letters.
Second, look at what I posted regarding this subject. You will see that I did agree that there needed to be a disclaimer, then I found the information that I shared regarding the statement made by Ms. Gossman who is a staff attorney in the office of Administrative Hearings. I am not the one saying that the disclaimer doesn’t have to be there, the Minnesota Court of Appeals said it.
September 29th, 2006 at 5:28 PM
[...] This weekend please be on the lookout for the strange "MIKE HATCH FOR MINNESOTA" lawn signs which have been sprouting up around the state without a disclaimer. These lawn signs are different than the standard "HATCH FOR GOVERNOR" lawn signs. If you see a "MIKE HATCH FOR MINNESOTA" lawn sign WITH A DISCLAIMER please send take a picture of and send it to: http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/contact/ [...]
September 29th, 2006 at 10:38 PM
For legal types, the decision is here:
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0605/opa051125-0426.htm
The statute provided that anyone disseminating campaign material that did not “prominently include the name and address” of the candidate or committee was guilty of a misdemeanor. It was ruled unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals. Based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions, it’s the right decision.
So, all of the screaming about disclaimers is irrelevant.
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:02 PM
The locating of the courts ruling is a great find, thank you for your service. However; these signs were printed with the disclaimer and now people are removing the disclaimer.
The questions still remain who paid for the printing of them? Why are the signs now being modified? Did some party or campaign request that the signs be modified?
When did Mike Hatch learn about the modifications of his signs? And what is doing about it?