Election Law Violations
There are some fairly strict rules that apply to political advertising. Even though some seem a little nit-picky bordering on silly, the Florida Department of State Division of Elections sets these guidelines for all candidates seeking office and is in charge of enforcing them.
Is whether or not a candidate follows these rules an indication of how they will treat city matters? After all, interpreting and comprehending our city charter and building codes is a lot more complex than just following specs for election signs and other related printed collateral.
Let’s do a little where’s “KIRBY,” (IRB’s version of Waldo) before all the political signs come down later this week.
QUESTION: Which candidate’s signs are missing a very important required word: “ELECT”? [The word “VOTE” doesn’t cut the mustard!]
QUESTION: Which candidate let an e-mail blast out the door without the mandated disclaimer of “Political advertisement paid for and approved by [candidate’s name] for City Commissioner.”
During last March’s municipal election the violations were rampant. One currently seated official omitted the word “FOR” between his name and the office for which he was running. “FOR” is required on the signs of any candidate who is not an incumbent. If you think about it, if the sign reads “John Smith City Commissioner” missing the magical three-letter “FOR,” instead of “John Smith FOR City Commissioner,” it does indeed create the impression that this individual ALREADY occupies the office…which is misleading.
In the instance to which I refer, the omission of the required “FOR” was an even more serious error since this individual had previously served on the commission, although not in the office he was seeking. This infraction, in that instance, had an even stronger possibility of creating the impression that he was somehow the incumbent—and incumbents win most of the time.
This same individual personally cost me $10,000 in legal fees by his insistence that my property somehow violated a rule that turned out not to be in the code at all! He couldn't follow the rules for political advertising when he ran for office and he couldn’t read and interpret our city code either.
Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB
P.S. Don House’s sign are disappearing right and left. Will the person on Harbor Drive North with the Don House sign leaning against the east wall of his/her garage, which I personally saw over the weekend, please return the sign ASAP?
(Note: If you'd like to comment on this posting, simply click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of the article and follow the prompts. You may comment anonymously if you'd like. Or, you can always e-mail your comments to irbeheard@cmdinc.net and we'll post them for you!)
There are some fairly strict rules that apply to political advertising. Even though some seem a little nit-picky bordering on silly, the Florida Department of State Division of Elections sets these guidelines for all candidates seeking office and is in charge of enforcing them.
Is whether or not a candidate follows these rules an indication of how they will treat city matters? After all, interpreting and comprehending our city charter and building codes is a lot more complex than just following specs for election signs and other related printed collateral.
Let’s do a little where’s “KIRBY,” (IRB’s version of Waldo) before all the political signs come down later this week.
QUESTION: Which candidate’s signs are missing a very important required word: “ELECT”? [The word “VOTE” doesn’t cut the mustard!]
QUESTION: Which candidate let an e-mail blast out the door without the mandated disclaimer of “Political advertisement paid for and approved by [candidate’s name] for City Commissioner.”
During last March’s municipal election the violations were rampant. One currently seated official omitted the word “FOR” between his name and the office for which he was running. “FOR” is required on the signs of any candidate who is not an incumbent. If you think about it, if the sign reads “John Smith City Commissioner” missing the magical three-letter “FOR,” instead of “John Smith FOR City Commissioner,” it does indeed create the impression that this individual ALREADY occupies the office…which is misleading.
In the instance to which I refer, the omission of the required “FOR” was an even more serious error since this individual had previously served on the commission, although not in the office he was seeking. This infraction, in that instance, had an even stronger possibility of creating the impression that he was somehow the incumbent—and incumbents win most of the time.
This same individual personally cost me $10,000 in legal fees by his insistence that my property somehow violated a rule that turned out not to be in the code at all! He couldn't follow the rules for political advertising when he ran for office and he couldn’t read and interpret our city code either.
Nancy Obarski
Beach Trail/IRB
P.S. Don House’s sign are disappearing right and left. Will the person on Harbor Drive North with the Don House sign leaning against the east wall of his/her garage, which I personally saw over the weekend, please return the sign ASAP?
(Note: If you'd like to comment on this posting, simply click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of the article and follow the prompts. You may comment anonymously if you'd like. Or, you can always e-mail your comments to irbeheard@cmdinc.net and we'll post them for you!)
1 comment:
The only violation that is getting old is all the Pre-Election LIES! It seems that these people will say anything to get elected and nobody holds them accountable, especially the press
Post a Comment