Who is Behind that Curtain?

We received a forwarded e-mail today with the subject line “ALERT” and read it anyway.

The e-mail read:

“The mailman just left the mail at my house about 15 minutes ago.  What was in the mail is rather disturbing.

“What we received, addressed to NAME REMOVED FOR PRIVACY Family, or Current Resident, was a slick post card, 8 1/2 x 11″ with instructions on how to write in Bob Walker.”

The e-mail continues:

“It is paid for by Citizens for a Better Spartanburg County; P.O. Box 4873, Spartanburg, SC 29305 US Postage PAID Columbia, SC Permit # 1118″

With only a few days until the November 4 general election, complaints about a mailer like this would normally would have escaped attention except that after some research, we also learned that this group, in addition to this mailer, has already employed phoning and e-mails to spread its message.

The e-mail, which also actively solicited donations to Citizens for a Better Spartanburg County (CBSC) , was sent to a number of Spartanburg school district e-mails including:

• gw.spartanburg1.k12.sc.us
• spart6.org
• spart7.org

As the blog UPSTATE UPDATE originally reported (and we confirmed from records at the SC State Ethics Commission), the CBSC chair is a teacher named Barbara J. Calloway. She also serves as the group’s treasurer and custodian of books and accounts, according to Ethics Commission records.

CBSC’s “Statement of Organization” shows that the group formed on October 22, 2008 and filed its organizational report on October 27, 2008 with an established purpose “To Promote Public Education in Spartanburg County.”

State campaign ethics laws require that committees must file their first financial disclosures “within 10 days after spending or receiving the first $500 of the campaign funds.”

Also according to campaign reporting guidelines, a candidate or committee must file a pre-election campaign disclosure “no later than 15 days prior to each election which covers from the last report (if any) through 20 days prior to the election.”

Since the committee did not file until October 27, there are no available public records to list who donated, what was spent, and how much was spent — effectively giving the CBSC a blackout period for their initial and pre-election disclosures.

Knowing the owner of Columbia mail permit number 1118 would offer some insight as to the mail’s direct source, but we have not been able to locate that information yet.

Rumors abound (e.g. web outlets like UPSTATE UPDATE and FITS News) that Bob Walker himself is allegedly behind the write-in campaign, but we have no proof to establish that as fact and will not contend that it is.

If he were responsible for or encouraging the effort, he would be in direct violation of SECTION 7-11-210 (Notice of candidacy and pledge) of the South Carolina Code of Laws through which Mr. Walker signed his candidate pledge that included:

“I shall not authorize my name to be placed on the general election ballot by petition and will not offer or campaign as a write-in candidate for this office or any other office for which the party has a nominee. I authorize the issuance of an injunction upon ex parte application by the party chairman, as provided by law, should I violate this pledge by offering or campaigning in the ensuing general election for election to this office or any other office for which a nominee has been elected in the party primary election, unless the nominee for the office has become deceased or otherwise disqualified for election in the ensuing general election.”

The section adds:

“In the event that a person who was defeated as a candidate for nomination to an office in a party’s primary election shall thereafter offer or campaign as a candidate against any nominee for election to any office in the ensuing general election, the state chairman of the party which held the primary (if the office involved is one voted for in the general election by the electors of more than one county), or the county chairman of the party which held the primary (in the case of all other offices), shall forthwith institute an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for an order enjoining the person from so offering or campaigning in the general election, and the court is hereby empowered upon proof of these facts to issue an order.”

This means a county party chairman could obtain an injunction prohibiting the candidate from further campaign activity in the election.

To be sure, we also also researched the constitutionality of SECTION 7-11-210 and learned that the question has been asked and answered by the Florence County Democratic Party through Moore v. Johnson (S.C. 1984) 281 S.C. 218, 314 S.E.2d 335.

That’s the truth.

TRUTH UPDATE: FITS News is now reporting on this latest development and also uncovered the owners of Columbia permit 1118. According to FITS News, the Walker write-in campaign is being handled by the permit’s owners Democratic consulting firm Campaign Research + Strategy in Columbia. For more information on this story and what else was uncovered, see the FITS News article here.

UPDATE TO: “Going Negative In York County.”

Yesterday we profiled a new negative attack in the House District 29 race between Representative Dennis Moss and Mr. Danny Stacy.

We stated, “We hope that as this race continues to unfold, Mr. Stacy will answer Representative Moss’ charges so the voters of House District 29 will have a clearer picture of the candidates seeking their votes.”

According to a Stacy campaign press release this morning, those events occurred at last night’s candidate forum at Fort Mill High School.

We are publishing the press release unedited below (omitting only contact information) to allow you to decide for yourself, and we invite Mr. Moss to respond since he was not able to attend the forum.

That’s the truth.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Danny Stacy                                   Date: October 22, 2008

Danny Stacy Defends Character from Incumbent’s False Attacks

Ad Called Danny Stacy “Dishonest, Untrustworthy, and Immoral”

(October 22, 2008 – Fort Mill, SC) At last night’s county-wide candidate forum presented by the York County Regional Chamber of Commerce, House District 29 candidate Danny Stacy took the unusual tactic of using his opening statement to defend himself and his family instead of promoting issue positions.

Stacy said that his practice in past and present campaigns has been to avoid a negative tone but that Representative Dennis Moss insulted him and his family and attacked his honor and integrity.

At the center of Stacy’s concern is a recent print advertisement sponsored by Representative Moss quoting alleged letters to editors of two area publications.

The ad’s conclusion reads, “Please be advised only two people are seeking to represent you in District 29 in the State House. We encourage you, the voters, to check out the validity of these letters with your neighbors. If it contains facts, then we believe you only have one choice…”

“I won’t mince words,” Stacy told the crowd gathered at Fort Mill High School. “Mr. Moss is a liar and a coward.”

“In his effort to hide behind a liberal voting record and his inability to communicate truth in any form, he has deliberately chosen to slander my character in a public magazine. Therefore, I am forced to counter lies that have no basis in fact and appear to have been orchestrated by Mr. Moss himself,” according to Stacy.

Stacy said that while he would rather discuss his campaign’s issues, “The voters deserve to know that he (Moss) is lying now and he has spent an enormous amount of time in perpetuating these lies.”

Stacy added that while his plan was to finish the forum by discussing policy position, he would be doing so “while he (Moss) cowers behind an excuse that he had to return to Columbia to ‘fix the budget mess’ that he helped to create last spring in ignoring warnings that spending was just out of control.”

According to yesterday’s House journal, the legislative body adjourned at 1:28 p. m.

Stacy said that his response was “both necessary and appropriate” and that he refused to allow anyone to make false statements about his family or character.

“I don’t have a problem if Mr. Moss disagrees with my positions. That’s what political debates are for,” Stacy said, “but when you start spreading unfounded lies about my family, that’s when the line gets crossed and we have a problem.”

Danny Stacy faces Dennis Moss in a rematch of the 2006 general election for House District 29 where Moss won by 63 votes.

About Danny Stacy
Danny Stacy has been an anchor of our community for many years. He has owned the Stacy Trucking Company in Gaffney for over 35 years and has been married to Martha for 42 years. Danny and Martha have four children and eight grandchildren.

Danny started his business after getting his economics degree. He worked his way through Wofford College after getting married and having two children.

Danny’s service to our community includes six years in the National Guard and Army Reserves. He also served on the Cherokee County School Board for four years and has been involved in a host of other community organizations.

Additional information regarding Danny Stacy’s campaign can be found at http://www.stacyforhouse.com.

-30-

Going Negative In York County.

The House District 29 race in York, Chester, and Cherokee Counties is quickly going negative.

The first attack comes from incumbent Democrat Representative Dennis Moss who defeated this year’s rematch challenger Republican Danny Stacy by 63 votes two years ago.

The ad appeared in a York County publication and posts two letters to editors of area newspapers.

One letter comes from Martha Elmore of Gaffney who urges voters to research their candidates before casting their votes alleging that, “We have candidates seeking office who are dishonest, untrustworthy and immoral.”

Ms. Elmore makes vague accusations of immoral behavior and “unsavory business practices that have lead (sic) to numerous lawsuits.”

The second letter, from Mr. Dean McKinney of Gaffney, states, “In recent primaries, Chester and York Counties voted a republican candidate in, that has never come close to winning in Cherokee County, where he lives.”

Representative Moss adds a call to action, “Please be advised only two people are seeking to represent you in District 29 in the State House. We encourage you, the voters, to check out the validity of these letters with your neighbors. If it contains facts, then we believe you only have one choice…”

We discounted the writing style and grammatical errors in the letters and print advertisement which alone could indicate that all three pieces were written by the same person, but dedicated to truth, we took a portion of Representative Moss’ advice.

We went beyond asking neighbors, though. We researched verifiable facts and first person accounts.

First, we looked at Ms. Elmore’s charge of immorality, and under the knowledge that, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” we learned that according to Mrs. Stacy, she and her husband have been married for nearly 42 years. While that may not disprove infidelity, a 42 year marriage indicates that Mrs. Stacy thinks enough of her husband to remain with him for over four decades

We also took Mrs. Stacy’s response to charges questioning her husband’s business practices.

According to Mrs. Stacy, “He ran his own business for 35 years. Financially, there were good times and bad, but he never failed to meet a payroll or provide for our family. He provided jobs for hundreds of people through the years and made a great impact on the area’s economy.”

Next we examined Mr. McKinney’s claim that Mr. Stacy has never received electoral support in his home county of Cherokee. Mr. Stacy has previous experience in public office where he served four years on the Cherokee County School Board.

With respect to the 2006 general election, of the 15 total House district 29 precincts in Cherokee County, including “Absentee” ballots, Mr. Stacy won nearly 50% of the precincts in the county. Examining the fact that more than 240 votes were determined to be fraudulent in that election, there is a distinct possibility that election fraud was more extensive and that Mr. Stacy’s totals could have been closer with additional Moss votes being discarded in the counting process.

These facts seem to negate the claims made by Representative Moss’ campaign and those who signed their names to the letters to the editor.

We hope that as this race continues to unfold, Mr. Stacy will answer Representative Moss’ charges so the voters of House District 29 will have a clearer picture of the candidates seeking their votes.

The original contest in 2006 was decided by 63 votes with Dennis Moss garnering 4610 and Danny Stacy earning 4547.

That’s the truth.

Libel or Bribery?

A couple of months ago, “Spartanburg Spark” posted a comment on our “About Us” page. He/she wrote, “You should post more often. I like what I’ve seen so far.”

We’re appreciative of the thoughts, but with all of the blogosphere’s other stops, we didn’t want this to be one that inundated political participants with posts when the need wasn’t there.

Well, today the need is there.

According to a discussion thread started yesterday on the Spartanburg Herald-Journal’s web site (the screen capture above is included for reference in the event the thread is removed), screen name “Common Sense Politics” accuses Senate District 11 candidate Mike Gardner of sponsoring a “push poll.”

The author quickly admits that Gardner’s campaign doesn’t have the financial means to conduct such a poll, so he’s contradicting his own statement and acknowledging that the poll isn’t Gardner’s.

He then accuses Gardner of stealing his opponent’s campaign signs and most importantly accuses him of “trying to bribe police officers to raise money for your campaign.”

The thread offers a lot of back and forth between “Common Sense Politics” and “Apron.”

Why is this so interesting and something that amounts to much more than an innocuous rambling discussion thread?

Here’s why.

“Apron” is self-identified as “RSB” or Rick S. Beltram, Chairman of the Spartanburg County Republican Party.

Beltram, in this thread discussion refers to “Common Sense Politics” or “CSP” as “Michael” which is never refuted by CSP.

Reviewing past discussions between “Apron” and “CSP” over various political subject threads, we learn that the “Michael” Beltram refers to is Michael Reese, son of Senator Glenn Reese who faces Gardner in the November general election.

According to the Herald-Journal on March 19, 2008, Michael “helps out with his father’s campaigns.”

One of two things is going on here.

Either Gardner is attempting to bribe law enforcement officers, or Glenn Reese family members (and by association, his campaign) have crossed from political attack to libel.

If law enforcement officers are on the take or if Gardner is trying to bribe them as Michael Reese contends, State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) Chief Reggie Lloyd and/or 7th Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy should initiate an immediate investigation and prosecute violators to the fullest extent of the law. We don’t need dishonesty in areas protecting the public trust, and the election is less than a month away.

If Reese’s allegations are fabrications created solely to cast a negative light on Gardner, his accusations fall under the category of libel.

The Herald-Journal should then remove the discussion thread and Senator Reese should condemn his son’s actions and remove him from any official or unofficial campaign capacity.

Of course none of that would prevent Gardner from filing suit to protect his reputation against the libelous accusations.

That’s the truth.