It’s everybody’s favorite losing Democrat and Steve Henry apologist, Kimberly Greenwell!
Yesterday I received an email blast from her campaign in which she attacks Ron Crimm over gambling (not exactly a wise move in a heavily conservative Republican district – duh):
CLICK TO ENLARGE SCREENSHOT
She’s right on the issue and stupid to be using it as a campaign stance. That’s fine and dandy.
But the big problem? Her campaign sent the message to an email address I used only twice in the past. And recently. No one knows about it and would never imagine the address comes directly to me. The two times I used it: to sign up for Greg Fischer’s distribution list and to sign up for Daniel Mongiardo’s list. Meaning she added me to a distribution list – illegally – without my permission (and didn’t provide a way to unsubscribe). Also meaning that she obtained the email address from the Fischer camp or Mongiardo camp.
You know she didn’t pay for the distribution list. So. Who ponied them up? Who wants to admit to violating campaign finance law/making a contribution to her campaign without disclosing it?
5 responses so far ↓
1 curtis morrison // Nov 5, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Wow, you’re on it, Jake. Did those other two campaigns have a privacy policy when they were collecting email addresses?
2 curtis morrison // Nov 5, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Wow, you’re on it, Jake.
Did those other two campaigns have a privacy policy when they were collecting email addresses, and is their retribution when an organization violates their own privacy policy?
3 Larry West // Nov 5, 2009 at 12:40 pm
It may be immoral for one candidate to share his e-mail list with another candidate, but is it illegal? I can’t tell by reading the FEC site.
However, if she did not include a disclaimer, and she sent the e-mail out to more than 500 people, then she is violating the law.
Since the no-call list doesn’t apply to politicians, I would guess that they probably added an exclusion to politicians in the CAN-SPAM act. If they didn’t, then she did violate the law by not providing an opt-out.
4 Bimbeau // Nov 5, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Is there a commonality between the campaigns?
Like Geveeden or Bluegrass Fulfilment?
No accusation here, merely examples of types of communalities.
Vote for Price; no ethical lapses there. No doubt about unrestricted support for real medical service reform. Will support a liberal agenda instead of being a blue dog or a sitty-boy.
5 The Dude // Nov 6, 2009 at 1:22 am
You’re all missing the real question here. The question is just how will the legacy of Michael Jackson be invoked in this race? There exists a moral imperative here (or in any race involving Ron Crimm) to properly use his name in reference to MJ.
So which will it be?
A. She will highlight his excesses, lapses, votes for waste/fraud/abuse, caving to lobbyists, and other miscellaneous douchebaggery and refer to him as “a Smooth Crimm-inal”
or
B. He will beat her to the punch and make her look silly in a debate, leaving her dumbstruck. At which time he will moonwalk around the podium, beatbox a smidge to lay down a groove, and then sing “Kimmy are you okay? Are you okay, Kimmy? You’ve been hit by … You’ve been struck by .. A smooth Crimm-inal,” ending with a tasteful, yet triumphant “Shamon!”
Leave a Comment