Comments on: Rand Paul & Campaign Finance Issues

By: bt

bt — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:30:29 +0000

Why not mention this campaign finance impropriety:

The state’s top election official was found to have violated the state’s election finance law Friday.

Republican Secretary of State Trey Grayson’s 2007 campaign illegally accepted a couple of small contributions from a corporation, failed to get all the required identifying information from a handful of donors and accepted a couple of contributions slightly more than the $1,000 allowable under Kentucky law.

The registry found Grayson’s campaign returned all the questionable money as soon as it was made aware of the errors and it found that the violations were not intentional.

By: Luke

Luke — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:22:58 +0000

they are just reminding people.. I see no problem here.

By: Go Rand Paul!

Go Rand Paul! — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:39:24 +0000

Heck, check out Rand Paul’s official campaign site if you want proof of collusion.

By: jake

jake — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:23:34 +0000

Yup – I’m terrible at pointing out campaign finance improprieties.

Here’s a hint, Paulies: Just because you don’t like campaign finance restrictions? Doesn’t mean you get to ignore them.

By: RandPaulsupporter

RandPaulsupporter — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:16:11 +0000

Jake, you need a job because you are not good at this one!

By: E

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 18:15:36 +0000

I still think it’s funny how Mitch McConnell’s attempt to fund his candidate of choice (Trey) is turning into a bonanza for the candidate of Mitch’s nightmares (i.e. one who doesn’t answer to him).

By comparison, the dem primary is booooooring…no fun, nothing memorable since Fancy Farm.

By: jake

jake — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:57:54 +0000

Yeah, that’s right, I’m “jealous.” Heh.

And a winger telling me that a fellow winger going on and on about a fundraiser (that the campaign allegedly has nothing to do with – but promotes 24/7) doesn’t have the appearance of impropriety? Shocking. Just shocking.

I’m so surprised.

By: Larry West

Larry West — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:55:30 +0000

Sorry, but I don’t see the impropriety here. There is a difference between “look what webpage or activity we developed” and “look what webpage or activity someone else developed.” As long as either has the appropriate disclaimer, which they do, then all should be fine. It appears to me that you are trying to create an issue when there is none.

Perhaps you’re just jealous because it appears none of Jack Conway’s supporters are enthusiastic enough (or perhaps intelligent enough) to develop something on their own.