“Georgians for Ethical Government” go after Ralston

According to the tip-line the following will be going out as a robo-call to residents of the 7th House District, along with state legislators. It’s basically a re-hash of the AJC article we posted about last week.

The robo call claims to be paid for by “Georgians for Ethical Government”, yet the Ga SOS website lists no such company.

Anyone get this robo-call?

27 comments

  1. analogkid says:

    I love the implication that doing away with certain special interest tax exemptions is somehow a bad thing. I’m fine with arguing whether or not we should have taxes on groceries and services, but claiming that the legislature shouldn’t raise “any” taxes is the same as advocating for the existing wealth transfers that shouldn’t have been enacted in the first place.

  2. Doug Grammer says:

    I think “Georgians for Ethical Governement” could get dinged for not being ethical and filing properly so we know who they are, and who is funding them.

        • John Konop says:

          This was an e-mail from Doug after I made a post. Still threatening to file a false complaint against me for comments I made. This is way over the line and NO ONE especial a CHAIRMEN of a political party should be harassing people looking for any technicality to create legal problems with people they disagree with on your blog!

          John

          FYI, I never sent an ethics complaint to you. How you chose to react to an example sent in an e-mail titled “here’s how to file” to someone else and what money you chose to spend is up to you. If you didn’t think you did anything wrong, then I am perplexed as to why you would blame me for you spending money to defend you on something that had not been filed.

          I’d like to know you definition of harassment. I don’t think exercising my free speech on a blog about political figures meets that requirement. I haven’t bothered to check to see if you had fixed everything or not. Not filing a termination report may be OK, but I don’t think so. As a gesture of good will, I took your word for it. Call me unethical ONE MORE TIME, and see how long my good will lasts.

          My definition of defamation includes repeated unsubstantiated claims of being unethical. There are other legal issues that go to it as well, but I think they are met. You can get your lawyers, I can get my lawyers, and we can see each other in court if that’s how you want to play it. We can find out who has the most to lose. Good luck on suing the GOP. I imagine they will hit you with a filing a frivolous lawsuit so fast, you won’t have time to say your name.

          I had put our differences behind me. You would do well not to bring them back up and put them in front of me again.

          Doug

    • Dave Bearse says:

      You’ve made it clear that the standard is that if it’s legal, it’s ethical, in numerous comments defending Deal. Filing and identification are not necessarily required, and if that’s the case, “Georgians for Better Government” shouldn’t be dinged for being unethical.

  3. JRM2016 says:

    Unless it was fixed during last year’s legislative session, the old requirement that electioneering communications include an identifying bug is not in place and has not been in place I think since 2007. So you could leave it silent or choose to include a group name that is not affiliated with a group registered with the Georgia Ethics Commission.

    • Dave Bearse says:

      I believe you’re correct. The legislation removing the requirment went through the Governmental Affairs Committee chaired at the time by Austin Scott.

        • Dave Bearse says:

          I’m not sure. I had a Summer 2008 conversation about the legislation with Scott. He was apologetic, explaining it was the result of surreptious change made unbeknownest to him, but concluded his explanation that a Court decision would have nullified any requirement for identification. (I’ve yet to understand the latter, as it seems the feds are able to impose electionerring communications requirements.)

    • Jeff says:

      Someone trying to create a stir going into December’s Speaker vote maybe? Remember, just because he doesn’t have electoral opposition doesn’t necessarily mean he doesn’t have opposition within his chamber – but because he IS Speaker, any opposition will have to tread carefully.

      • Dave Bearse says:

        You’re kidding right? Deference to leadership is a fundamental principle in a go along to get along General Assembly in conducting business as usual.

Comments are closed.