Ox Faces Ethics Hearing About The Time Early Voting Starts

Reporters and bloggers everywhere can rejoice. The State Ethics commission has just set a hearing on Oxendine’s ethics charges for June 24th, thus giving all of us a perfect excuse to recycle fun Ox stories just as the unwashed and undecided start to tune in.

Stacey Kalberman, the commission’s executive secretary, sent Oxendine a letter this week alerting him of the upcoming public meeting.

Last year, The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that two Georgia-based insurance companies had used ten Alabama political action committees to funnel $120,000 – almost ten times the legal limit – to Oxendine’s campaign.

Georgia’s Ethics-in-Government Act prohibits officials from taking money directly from companies they regulate. The law also prohibits funneling money through PACs to get around contribution limits of $12,200 per candidate in a normal election cycle.

My guess? I don’t think we’ll need to recycle old stuff. Oxendine is the gift that keeps on giving.


    • ByteMe says:

      Have a hearing that gets reported in every paper on the day before the hearing, the days of the hearing, and the day after the hearing. If they stretch this out right, could be right up until primary day.

    • Lawton Sack says:

      Yep. It starts 45 days before the election and ends the Friday before the election. I guess the candidates are counting on low turnout for early voting, as they are not running many ads.

    • Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

      The AJC and other newspapers gutting will start a lot sooner. Then you have you and me. So calm down Icky.
      And cut out the WTF’s. It makes you look like a 17 year old and this place a junk yard.

      • Ludwig Von Beachbum says:

        Plus there is plenty of time for him to make a fool out of himself and you know he’s gonna do it. We need to pray he goes hunting again.

  1. Lady Thinker says:

    Maybe some of the Oxendine supporters will wait to get the results of the hearing before voting and if the Ox loses, switch to someone else. That will hurt him more than whatever censure the Committee gives him.

    • Technocrat says:

      He cannot be censured since he returned the money when he found out the way it was received and deposited.
      If I was him I would just ignore the whole thing.

      Those that stupidly spend or solicitied [fund raisers] tainted funds are in different situation.

  2. hannah says:

    A “hearing about the time early voting starts”? Really? Isn’t the time already set by custom and statute?
    Yes, I realize the author meant to say “co-incident with,” but the word “about” is not only unspecific and vague when referring to content, in this instance it suggests that time itself is not important. And the disregard for the importance of time, our only constant and certain limit, is a particularly telling characteristic of the conservative mind. Conservatives, you see, would like nothing better than for time to stand still.

    No, there’s no contradiction in the fact that Dubya was always on time for his scheduled events. That is easily explained as the result of his handlers making sure that his highness would never be kept waiting or unattended for any reason. Timeliness was a consequence or result; not a cause.

  3. Ambernappe says:

    Are you suggesting that there be coordination between the Ethics Commission and the Voter Registration office for the scheduling of hearings? This would be making time stand still for the candidate.

    A better solution would be for an ethical candidate to instruct his/her staff to immediately report violations of contribution laws to him/her (training having been provided re: such laws – they do change from time to time). Any questionable funds could then be returned to sender by overnight mail, before being recorded, with a letter signed by the candidate – or campaign treasurer – specifying why.

    • Ambernappe says:

      addition: Consider this use of “about” as colloqial, as in “I am about to leave the house”, or “I am fixing to water the plants……….”. These phrases do not reflect the intelligence of the speaker.

      • Doug Grammer says:

        What about “I am about to start fixin lunch?” Does that mean one is getting ready to get ready to prepare food?

        • Ambernappe says:

          Funny !
          I was fixing to use that one, but did not want to further confuse Hannah, and was not fixing enough to invite company.

          • Ambernappe says:


            SHOOT ?????????

            Granny taught me to WRING their little necks.
            Sort of like what The OX may be wantin’ to do to somebody right now. Don’t even mention plucking their feathers ! That’s what the commision will try to do.

            • ByteMe says:

              My experience has to do with the industrialized way of handling them… it’s better we don’t discuss it. Amazing that I still eat them.

      • hannah says:

        Well, I thought I’d limit my commentary to language.
        Where campaign contributions are concerned, I think it is ill-advised to try to ensure the ethical behavior of public officials and potential public officials by putting restrictions on monetary contributions to political campaigns by members of the public– i.e. the natural persons who are qualified to vote.
        If I had my druthers, I’d limit the taking of monetary contributions to individuals who are also qualified to vote for a particular candidate.
        That said, since all kinds of corporations and associations are creatures of the state, there’s no reason why they can’t be excluded from participating in campaigns entirely. Surely, with the exception of political organizations, such man-made entities, can be restricted from engaging in political advocacy. We need to reorganize our priorities so that artificial persons (corporations) are subordinate to natural persons and private corporations are subordinate to public corporations. It wouldn’t hurt to subordinate private property to the individual person, as well.

  4. jenny says:

    You know, I never thought I’d say this, but McChickenHawk could learn some things from Ox in the barnyard ring.

    First, if your corruption is in the form of gaining money, you’ll actually have some in the war chest come election time to use for tv ads. But also, if you avoid the sort of corruption that surrounds seducing married women or giving cell phones to minors, you won’t have to empty your campaign coffers after the primary with legal expenses suing everyone dumb enough to give your victims a platform to unload.

    Oh, and one more thing–you could hire a professional to do press releases rather than the idiotic ramblings of a candidate filling every position within the campaign.

    But I won’t mention any of that since Dorothy left the Land of Oz and there’s no longer a Toto to pull back the curtain where the might ChickenHawk is pulling the levers and using the voice boomer.

    • Mozart says:

      Geez. With so many allusions in one post, I wonder what the original sequence of events was??? McChickenHawk, Ox, ‘seducing married women’, ‘giving cell phones to minors’, and Dorothy & Toto in the mix there. (scratching head).

  5. Mayonnaise says:

    Majority of Ox’s poll numbers is name recognition and those folks ain’t early voters. He could slide to third by the end of this thing.

Comments are closed.