Wednesday, February 1, 2012

MSJ Doesn't Report The News, They Fabricate It

I would expect that the Friends of Scott Walker will have to list this as an in-kind contribution unless they want complaints filed against them.

18 comments:

  1. Strange that the paper would do this. On the other hand, I think most signatures are fine and that this posting signatures online will only show how many people signed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't understand what is the issue with JS doing this?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dave,

    The issue is that, by law, it should be Walker's campaign paying for and/or doing the signature checks. This would make it either a in-kind contribution or just plain illegal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @capper Please. I suppose if they were to submit these issues to the GAB, you know and actually challenge them, then yes that would be an in-kind contribution. But I don't see it stated anywhere that they intend do that (and if they did it doesn't just show a better way to do this in the future?). What they are doing is using the Internet to do research, likely they'll be able to say we found X% to be invalid. To some extent this is an example of Open Government (Gov2.0), and they should be applauded not attacked.

      Delete
    2. Dave,

      First, one would have to look at what standard they are using vs. the official one. The ones that they showed on the website weren't the same ones used by the GAB, so there is really no way to gauge if they were doing it better because it just doesn't matter.

      Also, the same principle applies regarding funding. What is going on is a private company, Journal Communications, doing the work that the campaign is supposed to be doing. That is why Walker is able to collect unlimited funds, in order to have this work done. So now he is having a private agency do his campaign's work and still collecting untold millions of dollars of money.

      Does that really seem fair?

      Delete
    3. No it doesn't apply unless they actually submit challenges, which I'm fairly certain they can't do anyhow. Further, the Journal isn't really doing anything. The public is, which really isn't a bad thing. I simple don't understand how the media (or in this case the media facilitating the public) looking into government and the political process can be a bad thing, in fact that is their job.

      Delete
    4. They are not looking into the political process, they are actually participating in it. And they are providing the platform for the people to do the work that the campaign should be doing, by law.

      Delete
    5. I'll try this again, are they going to go to court and challenge signatures?

      Delete
    6. No, they are only paying for and providing the platform so that the work which, BY LAW, is to be done by the candidate or his legal representation can be done at the paper's expense. Again, this is an illegal in-kind contribution and serves only to sidestep the law.

      For your argument that this is in someway OK is invalidated by the fact they don't do this for any other politician or for any politician's campaign finance report.

      Delete
    7. @capper If they don't challenge any signatures, then what's the problem? Because I'd expect a contribution to actually be made, but if they don't challenge there is no contribution.

      Is it possible they're doing it in this once case because, oh I don't know, it is a big story? Yup

      And again what's the fear?

      Delete
    8. I really don't understand where the communication breakdown is. They do the work for Walker and give him the information. That is an in-kind contribution by definition. They don't need to actually do the filing of the complaint to be in violation of the law. They already are.

      And a record breaking six recalls last summer wasn't a big story? Isn't four more senator recalls a big story? Isn't campaign finance fraud a big story?

      And the fear is that it is illegal. Or are you OK with corruption and a corporate/state news service. I never pictured you as a 1984 kind of guy.

      Delete
  4. I agree, it's bizarre and not easily explained. If the Journal had helped the recall folks with placing signatures on petitions, what would be the response?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maybe they're making up for all their anti-Walker fabrications?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon, like when they fabricated an endorsement of him for Governor after Dan Bice had outed Wink for campaigning from her county position in the executive's office?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The JS really is screwed, you dont like them because you think they are in the tank for Walker and I wont subscribe because I think they still have a liberal bias.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this not also true of Clear Channel's monopolistic business model?

      Delete
  8. It is local media outlets that are really shooting themselves in the foot. Hardly a story critical of questionable Walker Campaign activities embroiled within the Doe probe...affiliate markets do not wish to halt the gravy train heading to their depot rife in ad buys spurned from out-of-state cash flow.

    ReplyDelete