Ethics commission declines…

to consider the complaint against Mark Taylor filed by the Republicans:

Ethics chair Jack Williams Jr. said Taylor “has not been given time to respond.”

Republicans who filed the complaint wanted the commission to issue an injunction blocking Taylor, currently Georgia’s lieutenant governor, from spending $35,000 in contributions they say are illegal. The complaint faulted the Taylor campaign for refusing to return $35,000 in separate $5,000 contributions from different Carl Gregory car dealerships.

So much for the idea that Perdue politicized the Ethics panel.

3 comments

  1. Mad Dog says:

    I feel like I’m repeating myself.

    Is this Day Just Vue again?

    “Actually I wonder how many people really care about ethics on this blog?

    The ethics committee didn’t have a quorum for three years because the Governor would not appoint people to the committee.

    Who failed to appoint and maintain an ethics committee?

    Sonny did. (Sorry about that. It’s a cheap shot but I’m trying to be funny)

    Who’s denying Mark Taylor a day in court? The ethics committee.

    Who gets to label Taylor as engaging in illegal activity? Any Republican that wants to do it.

    How many Republicans do the same thing? Ouch!

    I don’t think the Republicans did Taylor any favors by NOT giving Taylor a public hearing as rapidly as possible. I think dragging out this issue is a great political move.

    I agree with Bull, it works against Republicans to have an ethics committee that works and resolves allegations like Micky Mouse Gate quickly and fairly.

    Not clearing Taylor, not investigating Sonny… wins for the Republicans, harms the Dems.

    Good Political strategy. Unethical. Dirty. Underhanded. But brilliant. “

  2. Mad Dog says:

    Ops. Lots of errors in that post.

    How many Republicans do the same thing? Ouch!

    A better way to say it:

    How many Republicans have done the same thing as Taylor?

    And,

    When is the State going to stop candidates from contributing to other candidates?

    Isn’t that the money laundering charge against Delay?

    Or wasn’t it?

    It would just be cleaner or clearer to stop aggregating money before disbursing or re-dibursing it.

    Of course, it might not be possible. A huge donation to the state party becomes dispersed to candidates is just the same as candidate to candidate clearings.

    Funding of campaigns just isn’t much of an issue to the average person.

Comments are closed.