PSC runoff heats up.

Chuck Eaton is making charges:

The challenger put out a news release last week calling Burgess’ campaign finance disclosures a “complete abomination” and an attempt to “deceive the citizens of Georgia.”

The release referred to the Burgess campaign’s repeated use of the phrase “information requested” in the part of the campaign contribution disclosure form that asks for an individual donor’s employer and affiliation.

The designation shows up alongside the names of a number of lawyers, lobbyists and executives for energy companies such as Scana and Georgia Power who appear regularly at the PSC and whose names are well known to Burgess, if not Burgess’ campaign people.

Eaton called “Information Requested” Burgess’ No. 1 campaign donor, saying his Oct. 5 filing used the phrase with more than 70 percent of the listed individuals. The filing discloses $48,800 in campaign donations, of which $26,850 came from individuals whose occupation or employer were not known. Eaton also noted that Burgess attended a regulators convention in Florida shortly after the election.

“The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners [NARUC] convention is always heavily attended by utility lobbyists,” Eaton said in his release, “so I imagine David Burgess will be hitting his old buddy, ‘Information Requested,’ for more campaign contributions while he’s hanging out in the sun during the runoff election.”

Asked about the Eaton release, Burgess said he doesn’t prepare his own disclosures and that a campaign helper does it instead. “I’m not trying to hide anything from anybody,” he said. “I simply don’t do those disclosures. Somebody else does.

“Truthfully, I’ll be glad when it’s all over,” he said. “One race is enough. Two in 30 days is too much. It’s a very important seat. So I hope people will be interested enough to come out and make their wishes known.”

9 comments

  1. ColinATL says:

    My friends who know such things tell me that Burgess is totally bought & paid for. So despite the fact that he was appointed by a (D), I think I’m going to vote for Eaton to boot the corrupt.

    Burgess’ feigned ignorance over the “Information Requested” is criminal in and of itself. It’s not my fault, it’s a campaign worker’s fault. Yeah, because he/she forgot to get the employer’s of 70% of your donors. Convenient.

  2. blazer says:

    “Its not my fault, its my help’s fault.”

    Well daggum, time to get some new help…

    Oh and ignorance of the law doesn’t exempt you from it.

  3. ugavi says:

    What ever happened to “the buck stop here”. Why would we want to elect someone who will not take responsibility for his own fund raising.

    Eaton for PSC.

  4. RuralDem says:

    A little offtopic (but it still involves the PSC)

    Before the election people on the blogs were saying “Wise and Burgess are no different in the sense that they are paid and bought by lobbyists”

    My thing is, why is everyone fussing about electing Eaton yet no one wanted to elected Randolph over Wise?

    Party label?

    Also, any error or irregulatory no matter how small is bad, why is Eaton throwing such a tantrum over 46k? Seems to me that it’s a desperation move.

    People saw no reason to vote Stan Wise out, so I see no reason why anyone should vote David Burgess out.

    End rant. 🙂

  5. atlantaman says:

    “My thing is, why is everyone fussing about electing Eaton yet no one wanted to elected Randolph over Wise?”

    If you feel someone should have been fussing over Randolph then you might want to take a look in the mirror.

  6. atlantaman says:

    My point is that if it bothers you that Randolph wasn’t receiving much attention on the Peach Pundit then maybe you should have been blogging on her behalf.

Comments are closed.