Saturday, January 13, 2007

Your Alderman, Crook

We all know that Ald. Stone is corrupt. Part of the reason that we know this is that Berny flaunts his illegal activities. The arrogance of power.

The same can be said of his campaign. This afternoon, I noticed one of Stone's billboards and saw that it didn't have the required "Paid for" disclaimer. When I got home, I went and looked at one of the numerous signs that Stone's campaign had hung on chain link fences in the ward. Again, no disclaimer.

You might expect this from one of the challengers. They've never run before. But Stone has been running for office since the late 1950s. He has no excuse. The fact that his signs do not have the required disclaimer is evidence that he doesn't care that it's illegal. He'll do it anyway. Because he can.

What are you going to do about it? That's what he thought.


At January 13, 2007 4:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Yard signs are not required to have the "paid for" notice. As a matter of fact no campaign literature is actually required to have the "paid for" notice.

If the piece is mailed it should have "paid for by" on it. My understanding of the law is that if a candidate asks for money on their literature then and only then are they required by election law to put the "paid for by" notice on it.

Most candidates just put the notice on their literature and mailers usually because somewhere in the lit it asks for people to "donate" or provides info on how to donate to a candidate.

Speaking of donating to campaigns; It will be interesting to check the State board of Elections website to see how much money these candidates have, how they got it and from will also tell where they are spending their money. The deadline for filing these reports is the end of this month.

The money will tell the real players in the 50th.

posted by: Mad Dog

At January 13, 2007 5:33 PM, Blogger JS in the 50th said...

Mad Dog, are you a lawyer? I have a very different understanding from a lawyer (assuming the law did not change in the last 4 years). When raising money, you have to post a more complete disclosure.

BTW, the picture is not of a yard sign.

At January 13, 2007 9:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


No I'm not a lawyer but I have a very good understanding of election law. You are correct about raising money and having a more clear disclosure.

The intent of my post was to say that a disclosure is not needed on a campaign sign. (and maybe I need to re-read your posting, I appologize if I've taken something out of context).

Speaking about disclosure and laws, there are some interesting twists as they apply to candidates for alderman. The Federal Election Guidelines are a total pain in the brain.

posted by: Mad Dog

At January 13, 2007 9:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Your post clearly states that a disclaimer is needed on a sign. Your comment switches to talk about when raising money.

My original post is correct, a campaign is not required to post the "paid for by" on a campaign sign, bilboard, etc....

I'm not necessarily defending Bernie, just providing clearification for those readers that might not be as versed on election law.

Go Bears !

posted by: Mad Dog

At January 13, 2007 10:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please be aware that any committee that makes an expenditure for a communication directed at voters and mentioning the name of a candidate in the next upcoming election must be clearly identified within that communication as having paid for it.

Additionally, any political committee must include specific language on all literature and advertisements that solicit funds.

At January 14, 2007 11:20 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Look Two post down on your own Blog, Does that sign have any disclaimer????

At January 14, 2007 2:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Signs do have to have the "paid for by so and so" on them. Any campaign that doesn't have that is violating election law and can get fined.

At January 14, 2007 5:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So then Naisy Dolar is corrupt as well?

At January 14, 2007 6:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

she's not corrupt, just breaking the law

At January 14, 2007 9:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Stone is corrupt for no disclaimer, but none of his opponents are corrupt who also dont have the disclaimer?

So lets see that oh I don't know a double standard? But at least thats not corrupt?

At January 15, 2007 12:03 AM, Anonymous rachel m. said...

Any candidate that doesn't have the disclaimer on the signs is breaking the law, yes. So if the other people running do not have the disclaimer on their signs, they are subject to fines. Somehow I doubt they are being corrupt for that, just inexperienced. Stone knows better, which I think is the point. Stone is corrupt for so many reasons.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home