The Wiggins Response

Interestingly, it is paid for by the Georgia Republican Party.


UPDATE: Several people have asked for an explanation of the disclaimer. First, it has nothing to do with McCain-Feingold, which only applies to federal races.

The Georgia Code requires that parties can only spend $5000.00 on a candidate running for statewide office. However, if the ad mentions more than one candidate running for statewide office, it becomes a multicandidate expenditure and the GAGOP can spend as much as it wants. Mike Wiggins is a nonpartisan candidate, so it is questionable whether the GAGOP can run an ad for him under the multicandidate rule. But, by mentioning Stan Wise and Chuck Eaton in the disclaimer, the ad is a lawful multicandidate campaign commercial and the GAGOP can spend an unlimited amount in it — even though the ad never mentions the two Republican candidates, except at the end.

22 comments

  1. RuralDem says:

    I think the bottom of the disclaimer or whatever is also quite interesting.

    “Vote for Stan Wise and Chuck Eaton for Public Service Commission.”

  2. Good question. Maybe Eaton and Wise also disagree with Hunstein’s ad. I thought the worst part about the Hunstein ad from the Wiggans perspective was that he wanted to kill his sister.

    Did he kill her, or is she still alive to refute that charge. Because if she’s not coming forward to say that’s not the case, well that speaks volumes about Wiggans.

  3. Bill Simon says:

    “Most brutal ad ever”….boo-hoo-hoo…whine me a river as to what is the most brutal ad during the political season.

    If you want to play in the Big League, as Wiggins apparently thinks he’s qualified for, you gotta be ready for some ball-busting political moves from your opponents, and vice-versa.

  4. Erick says:

    Chris, O.C.G.A. Section 21-5-41 reads:

    The contribution limitations provided for in this Code section shall not include contributions or expenditures made by a political party in support of a party ticket or a group of named candidates.

    So, under a literal reading of that law, yes, multi-candidate expenditures can apply to individuals of the same party or others as well.

    However, I think a fair argument can be made that, given that the clear weight of the paragraph pertains to parties supporting their own candidates, the meaning of “a group of named candidates” must mean candidates of the political party on whose behalf the ad is being run.

    Adding two names at the end is, in effect, a CYA maneuver, I suspect. State Ethics Commission precedent and case law supports the use of the disclaimer as a vehicle by which candidates can be supported who do not make up the overall composition of the advertisement.

  5. dogface says:

    Statement of Congressman Lynn Westmoreland

    October 27, 2006

    “Of all people, I understand that politics can be a nasty business and certainly around election time becomes a full contact sport. However, in my 14 years of public service I have never seen a political ad that is more disappointing and personal than the TV commercial that Justice Carol Hunstein launched yesterday against Mike Wiggins. The fact that a sitting Supreme Court Justice would resort to such a negative, personal attack and at the same time distort the facts surrounding a man trying to save the life of his dying mother is unconscionable.”

    “Justice Hunstein should be ashamed of herself. We should expect more from our candidates, especially one of our state’s Supreme Court Justices. Even the Atlanta Journal Constitution has called the advertisement ‘the most brutal ad Georgia has ever seen’.

    “Justice Hunstein’s false and malicious attacks against Mr. Wiggins and his family are irresponsible, misleading and unprecedented. Obviously, she has gotten some bad advice from her political advisors. I urge her to do the right thing, admit that she made a mistake, and pull the advertisement. It has no place in Georgia politics.”

  6. defnotrep says:

    I go back to where’s the sister.

    She’s not stepping up to defend him.

    I read here in an earlier blog, supposedly the Hunstein campaign has a sworn affadavit from the sister. If they do, they should publish it.

  7. GOPeach says:

    Recently a candidate friend of mine in Cobb
    was at a reception with Mike Wiggins as well as
    other Cobb candidates both democrats and
    republican…

    She said that Mike Wiggins was a very
    gentle and kind man and she actually felt
    safe when he was in the room.

    This friend of mine is one of the best
    judges of charatcter I know and I trust
    her discernment.

    We are with Mike Wiggins!

    FYI – Although the judge’s race is
    non-partisan in that a judge can not
    actually have an R or a D beside their
    name…. we all know that Hunstein
    in being backed by Roy Barnes and
    many of her signs are at his law firm
    in Marietta along with Kreeger and
    Bodiford…

    Perhaps we should look at Hunstein’s
    diclosures and see how many democrats
    are funding her. She is clearly a
    a liberal judge!!!!!

    We have PLENTY of liberal judges !
    We MUST have WIGGINS!!!

    Everyone has a bias .
    I say find the bias and vote accordingly!

  8. GOPeach says:

    PS…

    I like to know which judge is personally
    pro-life …

    Hunstien is NOT pro-life.

    WIGGINS IS PRO-LIFE!

  9. defnotrep says:

    GoPeach,

    If all you say is true, call Wiggins and tell him to have his sister clear the air.

    People have a right to know before casting their vote.

  10. dogface says:

    defnotrep, The sister is the one who stole the money from Wiggins’ mother you dumbass.

    Mike won the right to keep their mother alive and won the recovery of the mother’s stolen money. The court sided with Mike, and barred the two from communicating with each other thereafter. The court gave Wiggins full power of attorney over his mother’s affairs, against the sister’s wishes. She dropped her suit … I guess she didn’t want the fact that she was the thief brought up any further.

    How then can Mike produce the sister, and why would the sister want to stand up and admit she was the thief from whom Mike was seeking to protect his mother’s assets? No wonder when the media has tried to contact her in Alabama she doesn’t want to respond.

    Hunstein knows this. They have and read the full transcripts and court documents and affidavits.

    And Hunstein chose to deliberately ignore the truth.

    And that’s what makes Hunstein unqualified to serve again.

    No judge should be so loose with the facts. No judge should be so reckless with the truth. No judge should twist matters of a court case in such a brutal and irresponsible way to deceive the voters.

    And to do so with a tragic case of a son trying to protect his mother’s life and money makes her pathetic smear even more contemptuous.

  11. atlantaman says:

    dogface-

    So glad you made your last comment, before I had a chance. It seems to be the most asinine, backward-ass logic to think that an irate sister who appears to be estranged from the family would need to come forward to vindicate Mike Wiggins.

    Any fruit-loop can say what they want and file any kind of suit they would like, the logical question is what was the outcome? Obviously it was in Mike’s favor. I doubt he would have been given some of the security clearances he received had the FBI actually thought he tried to kill his sister.

    Maybe I should file a lawsuit stating the Hunstein tried to kill me and then Wiggins could do a commerical about how somone claimed Hunstein tried to kill him. Then Hunstein’s integrity could be in limbo until I came forward to state that I was lying.

  12. defnotrep says:

    Gee dogface, appropriately named I’m sure, thanks for the name calling.

    I haven’t followed this as close and did not realize it was the sister that took the money. That does indeed cast a different light on it.

  13. dogface says:

    Walter Jones in an analysis for Morris News Services makes a good point:

    ” … the judge in the Wiggins’ cases cited [wasn’t] swayed by the inflammatory accusations.”

    But Hunstein was, and she deliberately ignored the facts of the case to twist the truth for her political gain. Poor judgment, poor judge.

  14. defnotrep says:

    With all due respect dogface, I think Walter Jones is a Republican. I could be wrong but I don’t think so.

    He’s a contributor to InsideAdvantage and almost always leans Republican.

  15. politicalanimal says:

    When that great and ethical jurist Hunstein was asked by the Fulton Daily Report in an interview last week why she didn’t feel an obligation to report that Wiggins had prevailed completely in the lawsuit and had recovered the money the sister stole and kept his mother alive, Hunstein merely responded that she figured others would do that.

    How in the world is this not a violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics??? She published a statement about a candidate knowing it to be false or recklessly disregarding its falsity. That violated Canon 7.

    Canon 2 also requires a judge
    respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Does knowlingly lying in an ad about what happened in a lawsuit promote public confidence in the judiciary???

    Hunstein is a disgrace and doesn’t deserve to be a judge.

Comments are closed.