Clinton Blogger Hammers the Mayor
 by Donna Ladd
Photo by Thabi Moyo
March 23, 2005
The signs proclaiming “HarveyMustGo.com” started multiplying like rabbits in Jackson last week. The lettering is rough and free-form, not even stenciled like on the homemade “Elect Jesus As Your Savior” signs we’ve all grown accustomed to of late. These signs are down and dirty and are designed to help unseat Mayor Harvey Johnson Jr. in the upcoming election.
The signs send observers to a Web site of the same name. There one finds a list of reasons not to re-elect the mayor of Jackson. The page leads off: “Mayor Harvey Johnson is doing a disservice to not only the people he represents but to the entire metro area by refusing to solve the problems facing Jackson,” it states. “In the upcoming elections, there are at least two good choices for the office of Mayor. Replace Harvey Johnson with someone willing to help improve our city!” The “someone” in that sentence links to the Web site of Democrat Frank Melton; the “willing” links to Republican Rick Whitlow’s site. Both men are challenging Johnson in the election.
It’s not a long jump from the site to its master: Mark Lyon (marklyon.org), a Clinton resident who has used the Internet before to try to defeat a prominent Democrat: state Sen. Barbara Blackmon. (His strident barbarablackmon.com is not still active).
Lyon, a Mississippi College law student who runs his own computer consulting business, thinks it’s perfectly natural that a resident of another town would so actively work to unseat Jackson’s mayor. “I’ve had a lot of customers who left Jackson because of problems dealing with the city,” Lyon said in a phone interview. Besides, he added, “I’m looking to move into Fondren or Belhaven.”
The mayor lacks “leadership,” Lyon says, and “does not actively encourage development or change.” The site is heavy on rhetoric and a bit slack on facts and context, offering easy memes. For instance: “The Mayor has repeatedly claimed that high crime in Jackson is merely a perception”—something neither the mayor nor police chief has stated. (They have warned about the harmful effects of perceptions that crime is out of control—a dramatically different statement.)
Lyon is also posting signs about another protest as well: twcsux.com (Time-Warner Cable sucks). He has a beef with the way the company dealt with his account, and is firing back. “It’s a very cheap way to get my message out to a lot of people,” he said. “The domain name costs me less than $10.”
The blogger said he may buy yard signs to replace his DIY signs. “I put up 10 or so at a time, and they get pulled down pretty quick,” he said, adding that it is undoubtedly “Harvey people” pulling down the signs. When asked if he had checked into the city sign ordinances, he said he hadn’t. “If they’re outside the guidelines, I certainly understand them coming down,” he said.
COMMENTS
Yawn!!!
Is the domain name pleasestayoutofjacksonifyouhateusbeinbgsomuchcoolerthenclinton.com available?
   Posted by: tortoise on Mar 24, 05 | 3:53 pm
I dunno. Go to GoDaddy.com and check for yourself. ;-D
Posted by: ladd on Mar 24, 05 | 3:57 pm
LOL! Really, I hope he resolves his issues and is welcome to join us.
Posted by: tortoise on Mar 24, 05 | 4:13 pm
He sounded pretty taken with the idea of Fondren and Belhaven, so maybe he will.
Posted by: ladd on Mar 24, 05 | 4:31 pm
So it seems that Alan Lange (he of the big-a** gun site) has posted an "open forum" site on the mayor's race. I just saw it linked on WLBT's site under the official Web sites for the three major mayoral candidates. Following is his press release about the site; it's kind of an interesting take, considering that he is listed as a host on an e-mail that went around North Jackson about a fund-raising event for Frank Melton at the Fondren Corner building (its authenticity was confirmed to the JFP by Warren Speed.) On this site, by the way, Wilson Carroll (former Republican candidate for district attorney) is complaining about the "plumbers" behind that e-mail being sent around.
The more blogs, the merrier, I always say.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Contact Alan Lange
Editor@JacksonsNextMayor.com
Phone: 601-506-2222
JACKSONSNEXTMAYOR.COM IS LAUNCHED AND BRINGS A NEW DYNAMIC TO JACKSONíS MAYORAL CONTEST
(Jackson, MS) ó March 17, 2005 marks the official debut of JacksonsNextMayor.com.
JacksonsNextMayor.com was founded by a group of local citizens to provide one place to go for media coverage and citizenís comments on the important upcoming mayoral race in Jackson.
The site will serve as an aggregation point for media stories related to the race. In addition to tracking stories available from established local media in the Jackson market on a daily basis, it will feature questions and answers with the candidates. Voters and observers all across the political spectrum will be able to add opinions and questions. The site will also feature some interactive polling on a variety of topics. All three candidates have been invited to respond with their platforms and to provide opinion pieces once weekly from either the candidate or a selected supporter.
ìThis will be an open forum for different views and opinions,î said Alan Lange, editor of JacksonsNextMayor.com. ìThe siteís design and format make it easy for visitors see what the candidates say about the issues and to respond with comments and questions.î
JacksonsNextMayor.com is an online publication of Jackson New Media, Inc.
Posted by: ladd on Mar 24, 05 | 4:47 pm
This is kind of funny, re Lange. He is buy trying to promote the site by posting it different places saying "there's a good article at jacksonsnextmayor.com" -- but failing to mention that it's his Web site. Sigh.
There's nothing wrong with a private citizen doing an anti-mayor blog, but I would suggest that Alan just call it for what it is. Jacksonians aren't stupid. He tickles me, but I do admire his earnestness. ;-)
Posted by: ladd on Mar 24, 05 | 4:57 pm
You might not like this comparison...
But, it's like CBS promoting all (well at least Richard Clarks for sure) those Bush bashing books that their publishing company owned without disclosing it. ;-)
Posted by: tortoise on Mar 24, 05 | 5:01 pm
I would also mention that Knol Aust talked about this anonymous, er, "plumbing" on the JFP forums weeks ago. For the record. ;-)
It seems to be happening from "both sides," so to speak. Although, I'll be honest that I want to get all these notices and e-mails about who's working on the various campaigns. I called for that when we posted Truth Watch. So I don't see a problem with that, per se. However, I don't want to get PDFs of e-mails that I can't confirm whether they're real or not, although, as I see, Warren Speed confirmed the authenticity of the one at question. It seems a little odd to me to make a big deal out of an e-mail like that going around as long as it's accurate, although I, too, am curious about who is sending the anonymous stuff.
Still, I encourage folks to send us whatever mailers, e-mails and the like you get from candidates and their supporters. Openness is very important in a campaign. And as long as I can confirm that they're real, I don't care who sent them. It's not the messinger that matters in this, as long as they're doing nothing illegal.
And I've said it before -- PLEASE LISTEN OUT FOR PUSH-POLLING PHONE CALLS. Record them if you can. We've seen some disgusting tactics used in recent elections here with push polls, and I want to know about them as they happen. So please keep us posted about them for Truth Watch.
Posted by: ladd on Mar 24, 05 | 5:06 pm
Someone just pointed out a posting of Lange's from that Ledge forum:
It is an interesting phenomenon in this campaign that certain folks seem to be lurking from the shadows to get their message out on behalf of their candidate.
Giggle. (A) Kettle. Pot. (B) What's wrong with "lurking in the shadows" in the U.S. as long as you're not doing anything illegal? Per usual, I'm not following his logic.
Posted by: ladd on Mar 24, 05 | 5:11 pm
I don't mind that comparison at all, tortoise. I think it's legitimate. It's not just happening with those books, either. That kind of conflict of interest is rampant in the mass media, being everything is owned by a handful of companies.
Posted by: ladd on Mar 24, 05 | 5:13 pm
True to that! Didn't Melton sell some of his indy stations to a bigger media company?
Posted by: tortoise on Mar 24, 05 | 5:22 pm
The phrase I've heard is trying to harness "word of mouse." Works for some things - like the Farenheit 9/11 blog and petition. Not always effective. my sense is that this type of things works better when people are upfront about who they are. So you know where the data, opinions and bias come from. If they try to sound legit, but clearly aren't, then they lose credibility.
"Word of mouse," how cute. ;-) Kate, I agree. That's one thing I liked about talking to Mark Lyon. Agree with him or not, he definitely wears his beliefs on his sleeve. He even showed up for a photo shoot. And, truly, part of what the blogging world represents is a turning-away from fake "objectivity." You should admit your own biases, even as a journalist, but that doesn't lessen your need to focus on facts, do your homework and ask hard questions of candidates.
I admit my bias. In this race, for instance, I think Melton has a lot to prove. He's the challenger, and he's the one without a long record of actual "public" service (meaning on the taxpayer dime and restricted by the Constitution), so it's up to him to show us the beef when it comes to his issues and his plans and his budgets and so forth -- and specifically HOW he will be a better mayor than Johnson. The truth is, this is not a campaign where you have a mayoral candidate who's been a dismal failure (no matter what his detractors try to say) -- Johnson has tangible successes to point to. That doesn't mean there is not a better candidate -- there may well be -- but a challenger has the burden to show how he would be better than a pretty good mayor. And that's not done by trying to minimize the successes of the incumbent. It's done by diligently proving your own mettle. I believe that's the challenge Melton faces. And we as voters need to hold him to it, and then challenge Johnson to better Melton's ideas. The city can only improve as the result of an issues-focued campaign.
For instance -- I haven't reported on this, yet (and significantly neither has any other media; we're weekly; what's their excuse?) -- but Melton said at his press conference yesterday that the city needs to do a better job of finding locally owned businesses to go on Farish Street. I believe he's absolutely right -- and I want to know what the mayor is doing on that front, and how he responds to Melton's challenge. That's something real I can wrap my head around, rather than all the rhetorical bullshit that too often passes for campaigning. I'll get back to you on what I find out. Keep an eye out. ;-)
Posted by: ladd on Mar 24, 05 | 6:19 pm
Of course, holding Melton's (and Whitlow's et al's) feet to the doesn't mean you don't also challenge the mayor back, warm his toes and factcheck his statements. For instance, Walker (my Truth Watch researcher) is factchecking statements from the mayor's site right now, as well as responses he provided to us about Melton's comments last week. And we're investigating a number of negative things we've been told about the Johnson campaign.
I truly believe that real civic coverage of these campaigns, without an obsession with objectivity, can help voters choose the best candidate and, ultimately, make the city a better place. We'll do what we can. We challenge other media to do the same.
Enough sensationalist sound bites without facts behind them. Step up, scribes.
Posted by: ladd on Mar 24, 05 | 6:20 pm
Something else re "word of mouse." It is important to realize that blogging -- and using the Internet for info-sharing and organizing in general -- is an end run around the mainstream media. In my opinion, it has been the most significant use of the medium in my view (if you're not impressed with its use as a porn marketplace, which I'm not). I wrote about this back when I first starting writing about politics in the Internet way back in the mid-90s -- the Dark Ages. What is vital about the Internet, whethering blogging or just e-mail campaigns or Web sites -- is that it is a way around the media "gatekeepers," as we call them in the industry. They're not that happy about it, but the rest of us should be thrilled that we have a way to get something out that's not filtered through the corporate media. Todd calls it "Being the Media," and he is right on.
Now, does that mean that everything you see in the Internet world is credible or supported? Of course not. That's why it's important for us all to demand that people support their arguments -- and it's easy to post links, and then for others to go read the context of a quote and so on. And it means that we should all be vigilant about what and who we believe. The truth is -- as we learn from the blogging world -- it's not the fact that someone has an opinion about something that makes it uncredible. That's not even logical. Educated people who have done their research are going to have an opinion! It's whether or not they've done their homework. That's where the vigilance comes in.
Posted by: ladd on Mar 24, 05 | 6:35 pm
I know I'm coming into this conversation a litle late, but I would like to ask the following important question:
Have ANY of these individuals filed campaign finance reports?
Miss. Code Ann. ß23-15-809-- "(a) Every person who makes independent expenditures in an aggregate amount or value in excess of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) during a calendar year shall file a statement containing the information required under Section 23-15-807. Such statement shall be filed with the appropriate offices as provided for in Section 23-15-805, and such person shall be considered a political committee for the purpose of determining place of filing."
GDI: The fun part is that I'm no where near spending $200. Posterboard and sharpies are cheap. Beyond that, I must only expend time.
Well, I'm trying to figure out if Melton is running for Mayor or is he a Real Estate Agent, since I see his signs in yards with houses for sale or empty lots here in NE Jackson. Only one is even in a yard, so either his campaign staff doesn't know the sign rules, or doesn't care! It's not hard to knock on a door and ask if you can put a sign in the yard. The Mayors campaign came by my house and put a sign up for me!
Posted by: tortoise on Mar 29, 05 | 7:48 am
I must only expend time.
And your time has no value? Look at the statue again: independent expenditures in an aggregate amount or value in excess of Two Hundred Dollars...
Your time has value and could easily be considered an in-kind expenditure along with the cotss of posterboards and sharpies. But more importantly, how much does a web site cost you? I see you are buying and selling t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. through that website as well. All of this is an exchange of funds and clearly included in the definition of independent expenditures.
HarveyMustGo.com is clearly in violation of the state's campaign finance laws.
HarveyMustGo.com is clearly in violation of the state's campaign finance laws.
In the short time window of this election you'll be hard pressed to refute any numbers Mr. Lyon puts forward that demonstrate an effective spend of less than $200. The value of his time, as a hobbyist, is his own to define. If you are so concerned quit whining and file a complaint.
Actually, HarveyMustGo.com was up before the official election season kicked off. From the first moment Mark Lyon began creating something to be put on the web advocating the defeat of a candidate, the campaign finance clock started ticking and monthly charges for web-hosting adds up quickly.
The value of his time is NOT his to define. Finance reports typically use minimum wage as the standard for estimates of volunteer time. What may be his to define is exactly how much time he spends running around buying, making and placing signs, as well as the time for creating his website.
You are also forgetting the expenditures on t-shirts and the cut the Cafepress.com folks get out of those sales. Additionally, as people buy t-shirts via HarveyMustGo.com, there becomes a need to file reports on receipts of campaign contributions (anything aggregating over $200 in a calendar year).
Until you've read and familiarized yourself with the campaign finance laws and procedures, I suggest you stay out of the discussion. I would also like to emphasize that this has nothing against Mr. Lyon or his side of the political debate. I would point out the legal infractions against anyone independently supporting or opposing a candidate for elective office.
And actually, I believe I might file a complaint if Mr. Lyon and others don't take it on themselves to follow the law. I mean, after all, since Mr. Lyon indicates that one of his main priorities in this election is in regard to crime, he should be even more willing to comply with the law.
[Juvenile insults snipped.] His 'sharpie' signs are no different that the thousands of "YARD SALE THIS SATURDAY" signs that are on every light pole and stop sign in Jackson. One sharpie will make several dozen signs, and with poster board running close to $.39 cents each at Walgreens, he isn't racking up a whole lot of expenses. I will assume he is walking or riding a bike to place these signs (no fuel cost there!!) And you can place many signs in a hour, so even at minimum wage, I bet you can't prove he has topped the $200 mark!!
When we buy a HarveyMustGo T to whose campaign are we contributing all knowledgeable one? Don't be a talker, file a complaint. Why are you waiting if you are so sure he's already violating the law? Action talks pally, BS walks.
Hey, how about all of you who buy a Harveymustgo T-Shirt have a get together at the mall and all wear your T-shirts. I think it would be great to see all of y'all in your "white" (i assume) t-shirts. You could get Melton to do a photo op or a car check, your choice! My guess is not one of you, except Alan Lange, will wear that shirt in public!
Posted by: tortoise on Mar 29, 05 | 10:33 am
Putter: His 'sharpie' signs are no different that the thousands of "YARD SALE THIS SATURDAY" signs
Sorry, you're wrong. They are different for the very reason that state law does not regulate yard sale signs but does regulate campaign signs for or against a candidate when those signs and any other expenditures (you seem to keep forgetting that this is aggregate expenditures not just the 39 cent poster board) go beyond $200. And if he would care to let anyone look at his billing reciepts (which would be required if an investigation were initiated) for the web site I guarantee if he hasn't reached $200 he soon will.
PBR: to whose campaign are we contributing...?
You are contributing to Mark Lyon's opposition campaign.
State law does not care if you are for or against someone in your campaign activities. It merely states that if you make expenditures in support of or in opposition to a candidate (see Mississippi Code Annotated ß23-15-809(b)(i)). Mark Lyon is running a campaign against a candidate, therefore purchasing a t-shirt, etc. through his system and in furtherance of that campaign, you are contributing and he is making expenditures. Both of which makes Mark Lyon a "political committee" under the law and requires periodic reports to be filed.
BTW, I laugh at your "all knowledgeable one" comment only because it underscores how little knowledge you have on the subject.
which would be required if an investigation were initiated
Stop talking. File the complaint. Get the investigation started. Put up and show us what you've got.
I seem to have hit a nerve. Wonder if it was the "how little you know" comment or the call to reduce crime and comply with the law?
Putter, you seemed to have made a wrong turn and ended up at the wrong blog. Here, it violates the User Agreement to tell someone to "get laid" because they disagree with you. And, er, it doesn't make you sound very good. So please refrain from personal insults, especially such blatant and stupid ones.
The back-and-forth about "oh knowledgeable one" isn't exactlyl making y'all look good, either. But the topic is interesting -- and whether or not HarveyMustGo should be regulated under campaign laws. I'll be interested to hear more facts about that.
Otherwise, I'm on deadline and don't have time to read the other posts closely. All, please enjoy rigorous debate, but be careful about ad hominem attacks. I will delete them without notice from now on out.
ñ Donna
Posted by: ladd on Mar 29, 05 | 11:49 am
Funny, when someone just wants attention (while hiding in cyber-space)....their main objective is to "hit a nerve". And why would anyone be scared to wear his/her shirt? What is your point? Are you wearing a Harvey t-shirt? Go ahead and organize a gathering. I would love to meet you face to face. And who metioned Melton? I wouldn't care if Don King was running for Mayor, as long as someone knocks off Harvey.
You seem to be a wealth of 'legal knowledge'. Did somebody get a good deal on mail-order legal-assistant courses from PCDI? Get offline, get in your Kia, and go file the papers to put a stop to all of this. Go ahead....we will wait for you to return. (While you are out, stop by Kenny Stokes' headquarters and pick up a sign for me!)
Oh, sorry. I will be more polite. Thank you for correcting me. I will just read the posts unless I have a coment that compliment the conversation. Again, I am sorry. Thank you.
I wouldn't care if Don King was running for Mayor, as long as someone knocks off Harvey.
Now, you're building a good case for voting for someone else, Putter. It does seems that the ABH campaign is in full force. I can understand not preferring Johnson, but why the anger at him? That confuses me a bit.
Posted by: ladd on Mar 29, 05 | 12:00 pm
The monkey is on your back pally, not mine.
GDI: HarveyMustGo.com is clearly in violation of the state's campaign finance laws.
That is a very definitive statement and conclusion. Now, are you hype, or will you act?
Hey, Potter, it's OK. We want your thoughts and opinions, just not the insults. If we allowed that, we'd end up with about three bloggers and nobody would give a damn. ;-) So, please continue to participate.
PBR, your challenges are rather silly. The point here is to discuss issues. It's up to GDI, or you, whether or not you want to legally challenge something. And I would have thought with your past ideology here that you would prefer self-regulation anyway. Your fervor in encouraging GDI to file a formal complaint rather surprises me.
And the "pally" is silly. No need to proverbially start unzipping your pants to prove who's, er, "righter" here. Just calm down and discuss.
Posted by: ladd on Mar 29, 05 | 12:09 pm
I hate to keep going back to GDI's legal statements, but to me it is similar to:
"That guy is breaking into someone's house. That is illegal and has a punishment. That is against the law. A law is being broken over there."
But heaven forbid that he ACTUALLY step up and report it. If it is THAT against the law, call the authorities!!
No need to proverbially start unzipping your pants to prove who's, er, "righter" here.----now that's funny!
I appreciate GDI's information, as I never knew that running an "anti-campaign" subjected one to the same rules as a campaign. And, for all we know, GDI's already filed something, or is working on it, or whatever. No one really needs to tell us everything they've done or are planning to do, and there's nothing on the books that says that GDI can't provide info on these boards AND file a complaint. Not sure why panties are in twists over this.
And I would have thought with your past ideology here that you would prefer self-regulation anyway. Your fervor in encouraging GDI to file a formal complaint rather surprises me.
I'm not encouraging Lyon to avoid self-regulation. He should file any/all required documentation if the $200 threshold is exceeded. I'd be surprised if he spends $100 total come the June General though I don't believe the Mayor will make it that far.
GDI's notion of costs is highly inflated. The website might have taken someone with Lyon's skills a grand total of one hour to bring online. Two hours tops. The signs probably took longer to make and put up. Domain names are dirt. Hosting can be bought for a song and burrito.
If I want to combat crime in Jackson, or Mississippi, then I better be hot on the phone when I see the house or car of my neighbor getting broken into. If not, I might keep my complaints about crime and JPD muted. GDI isn't throwing out a hypothetical for "discussion", GDI is highly confident that a violation (crime) is in (real-time) progress and has made a specific allegation:
GDI: HarveyMustGo.com is clearly in violation of the state's campaign finance laws.
If GDI sees a crime in progress then GDI should file a complaint. I'd venture GDI has nothing in the way of a hard data to justify a complaint. But I'm sure if GDI wants to step up then the JFP would provide a little coverage. It would make a good follow-up to the story above, for this campaign and those in the future.
I don't really care if you find something silly, or not.
OooooKaayy
Just a few things here...
Putter: I did not intend to hit a nerve, just observing that I obviously did. Also, I was not out seeking attention, merely sharing information and asking if Mr. Lyon is or plans to comply with the law, just as I would ask of anyone running an opposition campaign against Melton or Whitlow (or Don King). The issue is not about the candidate Mr. Lyon opposes, the issue is that he is not complying with the law if he does not plan to file campaign reports. As for my legal background ñ no Iím not an attorney, but I did election law and policy research for more than 7 years in previous positions. Also, just to let you know, the day you see me carrying or placing Stokes signs will be the day Ole Miss wins the NCAA (when hell freezes).
PBR: Your fervor does not surprise me at all. Your anger actually was quite expected. You feel like you can say the most outlandish things without documentation, data or supporting evidence. Then when someone brings up an issue and a stand with statutory documentation that doesnít sit easily with your agenda, your only response seems to be anger, frustration, sarcasm and ridicule. You were called on your discussion about education and couldnít back anything up even after being given resources ñ no databased rebuttal at all ñ and you eventually opted out of the discourse. Now you face black letter law and you are unwilling to even acknowledge that the possibility either does or will soon exist. Your ìsong and a burritoî is now more financially factual than my own assumptions, but you are just as dogmatic that no law has been or will be broken. I wonder if the same would be said if someone started a website against one of your favorite politicians?
Ladd: I don't mind the insults or the "pally". What doesn't cancel each other out only shows level of intellect.
And yes, I am asking the Secretary of States Office to look into it. If they find grounds for action, they will refer it to the District Attorney or AGís office.
Everyone happy now?
Wow, that is heavy from such an upstanding and intellectual citizen GDI. Since you only frequent the high road, why in the world did you post the rumors, since deleted from this forum, that I snagged via screen shot on [Mar 21, 05 | 2:39 pm] alluding that Melton was dealing drugs? Care to rebut that discretionary faux pas? Did you have anything to back up those claims?
No I don't have any backing and I admitted from the outset that they were rumors and undocumented. Nor have I tried to defend them since. The difference being that I never claimed that statement was accurate, unlike those who take stands and waffle-crawfish-flip trying to make them palatable as people call them to account.
1. You can't prove, and have provided no proof, that Lyon has exceeded the $200 threshold.
2. You can't prove, and have provided no proof, that Lyon has violated any campaign law at all.
3. You can't prove, and have provided no proof, that Lyon has purposefully evaded filing, and/or intends to purposefully not file, any campaign finance documentation associated with his operation of HarveyMustGo.com.
You have not proven a thing relative to Lyon's efforts nor demonstrated that grounds for any action exist at all. You have only made unsubstantiated allegations.
You have admitted that you posted allegations of drug dealing by Melton. Wrapping an admission upfront around the allegations noting that you were merely repeating unsubstantiated rumor didn't make it acceptable.
1. I have proven that the law is on the books (which you and others tried to discredit).
2. I have proven that the potential for a violation exists.
3. Harvey Must Go seems to himself indicate he had no intention of even looking into the possibility that he may need to file (see his post above).
4. I established the components for calling for an investigation into the situation with as much evidence as Special Prosecutor Smaltz ever had but I dare say this investigation will not take years and millions of dollars. The law exists, the website exists, the buying and selling of t-shirts and other paraphernalia exists, ergo the potential for violation exists and in my mind the likelihood that a violation is in the works if not already in existence sans a filed report. I would not call that unsubstantiated.
I admit to posting and passing on a rumor, which I clearly identified as a rumor. I did not state it as a fact, I stated the exact opposite. The rumor was unsubstantiated and I indicated it as such. The law and Lyons activities are facts; the only question on substantiation is how much has he spent. And that is a question for the SoS and the DA/AG.
GDI,
Well, I can assume you don't like The Rebs, (let's just pray that you are for Southern and not those landscape engineers), but that is an entire forum to itself.
And I am pretty sure that Dunn and Jim have bigger fish to fry rather than worry about a guy, his poster board, and a sharpie.
But I will agree give you points on one thing (**gasp from the crowd**) and that is your comment about Kenny!
(I get it confused...is it Smokes...or Tokes?)
putter: Dunn and Jim have bigger fish to fry
Dunn? Last I heard, the district attorney for Hinds County et al. (Dist 7) was Faye Peterson. I never said anything about a federal official.
and it keeps going and going and going
But you didn't say that you weren't either. As I re-read the post where you make mention of those, you actually didn't say Mississippi, but I took a guess. Do I get partial credit my answer?
....and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going.....
That would make a nifty T.V. commercial.
Ummm maybe on Jim; but it was a poor guess on Dunn.
DA = district attorney, jurisdiction over state laws within District 7
Dunn = Dunn Lampton, US Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, jurisdiction over federal laws in southern district of entire state.
Wait, we seem to have gotten off the subject....Didn't someone mention Harvey a few posts back?
Unfortunately, I must depart for the day. Have a nice evening Sir (if you happen to be a female, please excuse my sexist assumption)
After the discussion here today, I dropped by the SOS' office and spoke with the campaign finance people.
I am not violating any reporting law. If I spend more than $200 by the filing deadline (which is January 31, 2006) then I need to report. If I receive contributions from any individual in excess of $200, I need to report by the same deadline. GDI apparently never read 23-15-807, but you can at http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/23/015/0807.htm
After speaking with the lady who is responsible for the campaign finance office, we both felt it would be better, however, if I were to form a political committee and conform to the same reporting obligations as the candidates, which call for five reports during the election cycle. None of those deadlines has yet passed, and HarveyMustGo.com will file its organizational papers with the municipal clerk tomorrow morning.
So far, however, I don't think I'll cross the $200 mark. Hosting and the domain name are negligible, the web site was simple and easy to create, and my main method of advertising is posting my signs (which when purchased in a 50-pack are incredibly cheap + the one marks-a-lot I've halfway used). In fact, I've still got a ton of poster-board in the trunk.
Say it ain't so Mark. You must be lying. GDI has assured me you're more likely than not violating the law. It must be our lax campaign finance laws allowing you to get away with this.
Umm let's see HMG's PAC vs. Howard Deans PAC. LOLOLOLOL!!!! This is sooo cool!!!!
Posted by: tortoise on Mar 30, 05 | 7:30 am
Actually I was refering directly to ß23-15-807 and other sections when I stated that the filing needs to take place. Based on that statute (which reads in part, "(b) Candidates who are seeking election, or nomination for election, and political committees that make expenditures for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the action of voters for or against the nomination for election, or election, of one or more candidates or balloted measures at such election, shall file the following reports: (i) In any calendar year during which there is a regularly scheduled election, a preelection report, which shall be filed no later than the seventh day before any election in which such candidate or political committee has accepted contributions or made expenditures and which shall be complete as of the tenth day before such election...) and on ß23-15-809 (which states in part, "Every person who makes independent expenditures in an aggregate amount or value in excess of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00)... and such person shall be considered a political committee for the purpose of determining place of filing").
Those statutes indicate that anyone expending $200 during a regularly scheduled election or aggrgate amount during a calendar year in which a regularly scheduled election takes place is automatically defgined as a
political committee" and must meet all the filing requirements, including a pre-election report. The question was how much did he spend. I contend that if you account for all the sharpies, t-shirts et al., poster boards, web costs and "in-kind" time, Mr. Lyon will expend $200 prior to the general election (if not the primary). (I don't believe he gave a fair acounting of his aggregate expenditures when he had is talk.)
However, if he files incoproaration papers as a political committee then he must file all reports, pre-, post, periodic, and annual reports regardless of the amount of expenditures. Obviously the SoS folks felt like there was a potential for the filings or they would not have suggested the actions Lyon is now taking.
I knew it, I just knew it! There's a smoking gun in there somewhere.
PBR, why do you find this so annoying? I fail to understand why all the snark from you and others is required in this conversation. Whatev.
And, HMG, how do you count the T-shirt sales? or, have there been none? That seems like it'd be the thing to put you over the mark the most quickly.
I ask, not because I really care that much about this little activity, but because it's an interesting question to ponder, and I've never really thought much about campaign finance, and there are so many random activities like this, it's interesting to see if the people running them have really thought through what they're doing.
And, really, you should look into the sign posting ordinances. We got into this on another thread, and I'd hate to think you're trashing up Jackson with your signs, without a clue as to what the rules of the game are. Because that'd be both irresponsible and annoying.
And, really, you should look into the sign posting ordinances. We got into this on another thread, and I'd hate to think you're trashing up Jackson with your signs, without a clue as to what the rules of the game are. Because that'd be both irresponsible and annoying.
Yes, the Baker's dozen of signs Lyons has put up, only to find them quickly taken down, is certainly as annoying as the hundreds of campaign signs now littering our public right-of-ways. Its been refreshing to see your regular comments about how Jackson has been getting trashed by that signage also.
GDI apparently didn't read his own quote. First, he cites ß23-15-807 which impacts: ìCandidates who are seeking election, or nomination for election, and political committees,î not individuals making expenditures. ß23-15-809 only applies the "political committee" label to individuals as it concerns determining the place of filing, not timing of filings. The SOS didn't encourage me to form a committee for any other reason than simplicity. I can continue to operate as an individual with no filing concerns at all, until Jan 31, 06. I voluntarily, however, will be filing because I think it is a good thing to do.
If you have a problem with individuals being able to get involved in the political process, the SOSí election hotline is 800-829-6786 or 601-576-2550.
There haven't been merchandise sales in any large quantity to this point.
I've tried to get the sign ordinances so that I know exactly (not just quotes of what they say) but haven't had any luck. If someone knows how I can find them, I'd be thrilled to check them out. As it stands, though, I'm only putting signs out where I see other political signs. My rationale is that if I see one of the mayor's signs there, then it must be placed within the law. After all, I can't see that our mayor would go around violating the law. I also keep a count and map of my sign placements. That way I can pull them once Harvey loses.
I've not placed any signs over the past couple of weeks, instead opting to hold a sign at places I know voters will be, like the LWV / Channel 12 / Clarion-Ledger forums.
Mark, I'm rather relieved to hear that the law doesn't apply to your blog, and I do think that folks should be able to put up signs -- as long as you pack them out, and hang them in a way that they don't come down and litter the streets, and I don't see any of them lying on the streets. (Like after that big SafeCityWatch thing they did a couple years ago at the Masonic Lodge.)
I'm on the record being against stupid sign placement by any candidate. More importantly, I don't understand all the trust folks put into in Mississippi in getting their message out. I'd rather see people spending time and money putting effort into actual messages -- which your site arguably does, although I think you could be a bit tighter on attribution and factchecking. But it's your blog.
The attacks on GDI are rather silly. I think it was a fascinating question that he/she raised -- about whether the laws would regulate this in some way, which hadn't occurred to me -- and all the na-na-na-boo-booing is juvenile. Please reign it in. I'm sure some of you doing it would be having the exact opposite reaction had the candidates been reversed. It's transparent, so stop using my blog to play a child's game.
Posted by: ladd on Mar 30, 05 | 10:10 am
Harvey, I read my quote. Did you read the law?
"SEC. 23-15-809. Statements by persons other than political committees; filing; indices of expenditures.
(a) Every person who makes independent expenditures in an aggregate amount or value in excess of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) during a calendar year shall file a statement containing the information required under Section 23-15-807. Such statement shall be filed with the appropriate offices as provided for in Section 23-15-805, and such person shall be considered a political committee for the purpose of determining place of filing.
(b) Statements required to be filed by this section shall include:
(i) Information indicating whether the independent expenditure is in support of, or in opposition to, the candidate involved;
(ii) Under penalty of perjury, a certification of whether or not such independent expenditure is made in cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate; and
(iii) The identification of each person who made a contribution in excess of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) to the person filing such statement which was made for the purpose of furthering an independent expenditure."
807 then indicates what information and reports must be filed. You cannot take part of one statute and part of another for the sake of convenience.
Ladd, I never said his blog was in violation or needed to file. I said the HarveyMustGo site, which is separate from his blog, and his opposition activities (t-shirt/paraphernalia etc.) should file. Bloggers have every right to give their opinions on the web without regulation, just as much as posters here have that right. The difference comes in when expenditures occur for the purposes of advocating the defeat of a candidate in an election. It may seem like splitting hairs, but that's how the law reads.
PBR wrote:
Yes, the Baker's dozen of signs Lyons has put up, only to find them quickly taken down, is certainly as annoying as the hundreds of campaign signs now littering our public right-of-ways. Its been refreshing to see your regular comments about how Jackson has been getting trashed by that signage also.
Dude(-ette), were you even around for the sign discussion. Do you know whether or not I've complained, or are you just poking at me for fun? I mean, what's your point?
I was referring to this paragraph in the article, where Mark, aka HMG, said he hadn't looked into the sign ordinances:
The blogger said he may buy yard signs to replace his DIY signs. ìI put up 10 or so at a time, and they get pulled down pretty quick,î he said, adding that it is undoubtedly ìHarvey peopleî pulling down the signs. When asked if he had checked into the city sign ordinances, he said he hadnít. ìIf theyíre outside the guidelines, I certainly understand them coming down,î he said.
Because, seriously, the guy's running a campaign and should know what the rules and laws are. Just good business.
...the guy's running a campaign and should know what the rules and laws are.
That has been my point all along. Thank you kate for making it so succinctly.
Plus, it's interesting that PBR seems to think that no one should ask any questions or in any way criticize the HMG site. I mean, why the anger over my question about signage rules? Am I supposed to be intimidated out of asking questions from now on, or what?
I often fnd that, with curious people, the more (intellectually) intimaditing some one tries to be, the more others ask questions of him or her. Making the intimidator-wannabe move from intimidation to frustrated anger.
Funny how that works.
Thanks everyone for the input.
I am in compliance, and plan to remain in compliance, with all campaign finance laws.
I also plan to get a copy of the applicable sign ordinances and follow those as well. To that end, I've emailed City Attorney Terry Wallace asking for help locating that information.
I am also working on adding additional information to the site, as well as providing better background and fact-checking for the information I already have. Lexis-Nexis is a good thing.
Donna asked that we move some of the argumentation on GDI's legality questions away from here, and I find that a reasonable request. Anyone who wishes to inquire further about those matters should feel free to email me (harveymustgo@gmail.com).
I'd like to encourage everyone to get involved in whatever capacity they feel appropriate for or against any of the candidates. People who are willing to be plugged into the process and at least question their leaders keep our government moving forward.
Most of all, I encourage everyone to go out and vote, no matter who you vote for.
HMG, now you can be a campaign consultant, since you know all this stuff. Tedious though it may be. Good luck with the 'word of mouse' game. Use your power wisely, though.
Harvey, sounds like you're taking this all in the spirit of making your site better. Cheers to you for that. I wrote about your site in the first place because I think the more "media" outlets, the better. And you were very forthcoming in our interview. I admired that. And I have some no evidence that you're misrepresenting your intentions at all.
Otherwise, I don't see anything particularly wrong with any of the questions raised above on either side, although the snippiness got a little crazy. It sounds like we're all a bit smarter as a result.
Posted by: ladd on Mar 30, 05 | 12:14 pm
HMG-
You can get a copy of the city sign ordinance in the Warren Hood building (200 S. President St., accross from City Hall). Check with either the Signs and License Division or Zoning Division.
In short, you cannot place a political sign within 10 feet from a public right-of-way, a sign cannot exceed 12 sq.ft., and you can only have one sign per candidate per business or residence.
So, pretty much every candidate is violating the city sign ordinance.
So, pretty much every candidate is violating the city sign ordinance.
Yep, that's my conclusion, too.
Posted by: ladd on Mar 30, 05 | 3:51 pm
|
