This will be interesting

The State Ethics Commission is looking at changing regulations relating to maximum campaign contributions.

Basically, you could max out to a candidate who could then pour that money into someone else’s race. Or, for example, Governor Perdue could take all his left over campaign cash and give it to another candidate.

Sounds like it goes against the clear intentions of our campaign finance scheme in the state, but then I am one who believes we should be able to give anything we want so long as it is disclosed within 24 hours of receipt.


  1. Progressive Dem says:

    This is a continuation of the sleazy goings on in the Gold Dome.
    Consider the following quotes from the aforementioned article:

    “Earlier this year, a bill to cap inter-campaign transfers attracted 40 co-sponsors from both parties. It never even got a hearing.”

    “Ralston told me he did not regard campaign finance as part of the ethics mess that he was trying to clean up.”

    “…one reason Richardson held on to power was the vast amount of political money under his control.”

    “Richardson, despite drawing no opposition for re-election, has raised $2.3 million for his campaign and a separate political fund since 2004. Of that, $684,000 was passed on to other Republican candidates or organizations.”

    We should be electing people to set policy, not to become political bosses. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.

  2. log224 says:


    I’m really surprised this is coming up as a statewide precedent issue. As on the of the Chalk campaign members who was part of the decision to receive the $10K from the defunct Walker campaign, I can tell you that we sought the opinion of the Ethics Commission before approving it, and received a “go ahead” based on the law that allows transfers “without limitation” of excess campaign funds.

    In a party situation, the rules surrounding partisan races with specific committees and legal apparatus would apply to how funds are transferred.

    This was a non-partisan race, and it’s obvious that the Walker funds could not ever be used for anything on Walker’s behalf since the candidate was deceased. Therefore, the Commission’s opinion was that in the race that was already in progress, the excess funds could have been transferred to any other campaign in that race (or to charity as the law allows), and that opinion was given before Chalk made the decision to accept the funds.

    The entire reason that the complaint was filed is due to some rather shoddy journalism by the Macon Telegraph (which was and remains solidly in the corner of the other candidate, who won the runoff election by a very slim margin) and (in my opinion) cowardly actions by a specific employee of the Commission, who is no longer there. The way the stories were spun and the refusal of the Commission employee to set things straight led to the complaint.

    I personally am glad that Chalk’s actions were exonerated, and I know that Chalk is glad that the complaint was filed, given the cloud that would be over his head should he seek office in the future.

    Two points:

    1) If a candidate can’t rely on an opinion given by the Commission itself in a “gray” area, how can any election proceed in an orderly manner? The parties are rife with all kinds of special “tricks” as it is.

    2) Isn’t it a bit of a stretch to take the Commission’s decision to dismiss this complaint over $10K and attempt to apply it to partisan elections where millions are at stake?

  3. Lady Thinker says:

    I think this is a bad idea. If I had given a significant amount to one candidate, I would hate for that money to be passed on to an Oxendine type or a Deal type candidate. I would prefer the money be returned or given to a charity.

Comments are closed.