Comment 61275

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted March 21, 2011 at 10:11:28 in reply to Comment 61260

Fair enough, my bad. I should have checked my specific charges. Nonetheless, he was publicly exposed for elections act, and was in fact convicted - the first ever under the new law, prompting other municipalities to start laying their own.

Whatever you want to call the charge (we had been discussing fraud charges at the time against those who misrepresented the name/number of their corporations), it's pretty clear that they didn't come from people without accountants, and did come from companies and individuals with lots to gain from his victory.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/275/

Furthermore, it is pretty clear that there was absolutely no interest among councilors in investigating or pressing charges. Citizens, much like those who first exposed the donations, had to press charges civilly because the government refused to do so. Whatever councilors happened to think of these donations, though, the public obviously felt differently.

If these documents had never been public, there's virtually no chance that any of this would ever have been discovered, and a decent likelihood that he would not have lost two elections since. This is exactly why public data is important.

"Today, the notion of progress in a single line without goal or limit seems perhaps the most parochial notion of a very parochial century." — Lewis Mumford

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds