Wednesday, June 4, 2014

JP2 takes another bite of the apple….


Much as we’d like to have access to the NSA’s accumulated metadata for the Brunswick region, they’ve yet to accept our application for access to this pot of gold.  But we do have a few bell ringers of our own who provide us with a rudimentary form of their services.

In this case, we’re referring to the post on “Primary Colors’ from last week:


In it, we asked a number of questions of our local primary candidates for the state legislature.  Not surprisingly, the response has been as we expected.


We also pointed out circumstances relating to candidates running under provisions of the Maine Clean Elections Act, and the guidelines associated with doing so.  In particular, we referred to a local political celebrity we refer to, at a reader’s suggestion, as JP2.

As Chance would have it, a related missive flew in over our transom, adding to our questions as to whether she’s crossed the lines of propriety in this regard.

For your convenience, here’s the relevant passage from that post:

    “while a candidate is not prohibited from fundraising for a political action committee (PAC) or a political party committee, the candidate should be aware of certain risks in doing so.  If the PAC or party committee is going to spend money to promote the candidate, the candidate may wish to consider whether the assistance with fundraising will create the public perception or lead to the conclusion that the candidate cooperated with the PAC or party committee’s expenditures to promote the candidate."

Now that you’re refreshed on the details, take a look at this message:

From: Jacqueline Sartoris 
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 4:01 PM
To: (presumed officers and members of the Brunswick Town Democrat Committee)

Subject: Re: REMINDER: Important meeting WEDNESDAY,MAY 7, 6-7pm, HAWTHORNE SCHOOL

Dear (Chair),

I'm afraid I will not be able to make tonight's meeting. I will be happy to promote our fundraiser, and another reminder email that can be forwarded to other folks would be great in that effort.

I do want to just comment briefly on the Unity picnic idea. Whomever wins in the primary, I am voting for the Democrat in November, as Democratic values are most needed in Augusta. However, as I've made clear, I truly, strongly disapprove of the personal ethics displayed in this race. Mr. Tucker knew I was running last May, as we had discussed it. Quietly soliciting support from well-known Brunswick Democrats without divulging they would be used against a fellow Democrat may have been an effective way to gather people's names, but it was also misleading to them, and to anyone else who sees those names and believes all those people chose Mr. Tucker over me. While I certainly understand wanting to win this race, I simply don't believe that winning should be more important than being honorable. Ditto for the claim about not knowing about our sign ordinance. It's not simply a matter of winning or losing, it's the ethics we display that gives our fellow citizens a reason to respect the work political parties do, and perhaps be encouraged to join in. I didn't serve as Vice Chair to run for office. I served because I sort of thought we were about values.

My point is this: Win or lose, I will, of course, vote for the person who will carry Democratic values to Augusta. I've worked hard, with so many others in the past few years, to make sure in the face of the hate-the-poor LePage years, that we live our Democratic values, through the MLK fundraiser for MidCoast Hunger Prevention Program. In three years we've raised $3600, and I've been more than willing to do that sort of work. But spending my family time picnicking with an opponent who has now spent more money to elect himself than I have been able to raise for hunger in 3 years? That's asking too much of this loyal Democrat!

I suggest we have a gathering towards the end of the summer, let things cool down, and please not call it "Unity."

Unless it's "Unity against LePage." That, we are.


Jackie Sartoris

Much as we wanted to include the full list of addressees to the message, we just couldn’t bring ourselves to do so at this point.  We know you’d have found it ‘delicious’ in the editorial sense of things.  And revealing of the family squabbles inherent in pursuit of a position in the ruling class.

At the same time, we can’t help but note the author admirably restrained her ‘biting’ instincts.

We’ll leave it to readers, and should they show an interest, the Ethics Commission, to decide whether a line has been crossed.

Or we could look to the author to put some teeth into her commitment to ‘honorable’ behavior.

Not that there’s much advantage to doing so these days.  Or many good examples in recent electoral pursuits.

Brunswick doesn’t seem to ‘value’ or ‘celebrate’ such things. 

Is this any way to run a railroad?

No comments:

Post a Comment