Another great reason to avoid YARD SIGNS comes to from Florida. Election day in Florida was Tuesday. Days later, Frances, a hurricane, arrived. The political signs stuck all around the state are sure to be fast-moving in-flight objects making life more dangerous, ripping down electrical, phone, cable lines and causing nasty property damage as they scrape and puncture.
I hate yard signs. I doubt I'll ever spend a nickle on yard signs in any campaign.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
October 3, 2004
Dear Friends:
Here we are, less than 30 days from election day! Two months ago, I was an unknown. Today, I am the most villified woman in North Carolina, right up there with Katherine Harris. The nasty comments continue, but it's from the same old people, both on the left and the right. There is nothing that I can do or say to change their hearts and minds. So, unless they present something new, I am not going to spend any more of my time responding to the inane and hateful remarks.
The purpose of my website, www.rachelforcourt.com, is to reach out to the voters who are not commited ideologues. For the great many of you who are in this category, I invite you to take a look at my website and to post any inquiries about the legal system or the law.
While driving around the Triangle this week, I noticed a great many political campaign signs on the road, many of them from judicial candidates. I also read an article in the Charlotte Observer where the topic of public financing for campaigns was discussed. The article indicated that at least five of the candidates in this race had accepted public financing. At least now we know how they are spending those taxpayer dollars!
When I entered my name for the race, the employees at the State Board of Elections made a point of telling me that a judicial candidate for the Supreme Court absolutely, positively cannot put out signs on the interstates and roadways. I am certain that the same advice was given to the other candidates, yet there the signs are. Either the candidates have intentionally or negligently disregarded the law or they have failed to instruct their supporters as to the requirements of the law.
My philosophy has always been that if a business or person can't do the little things right, then in all probability they cannot do bigger jobs correctly either. Would you allow a car mechanic to replace your engine when he/she cannot correctly change your oil?
Sure, yard signs and bumper stickers are nice. I know how the voters feel about them. But in reality, they don't do much in terms of winning elections. And when they are involuntarily paid for by the taxpayers or by citizens who do not agree with the positions endorsed, its worse. I have decided not to spend money on such frivolities because I don't want anyone out there to violate the law on my behalf. I think its more important to get people registered to vote and to enlighten them about the law, myself and my judicial philosophy.
I have one other point about public financing. From the news article, it explained how the purpose of public financing was to uphold the integrity of the judiciary by freeing judges from the odious task of asking for money. There are several problems with the financing system. In order to even qualify, candidates must raise a certain amount of money beforehand. The amount in question depends on the position sought. For the Supreme Court, a candidate must raise at least $35,000 to qualify. And the contributions must be raised from individuals in increments of no more than $500. How is a judge to raise this money? Why is it unseemly for a judge to ask for $500 from any one person, but it is improper to ask for further contributions once the $35,000 threshold is crossed? And its patently unfair. Some judicial candidates for one seat got $200,000 dollars, but other candidates had to split the available sum and got far less. And just what are they going to do with that money? Invest in yard signs? How does any candidate successfully reach the millions of voters across this state? When one considers the costs involved, the money is a paltry sum. You all, I'm sure, could make better use of your funds.
If you want people on the Supreme Court who cannot follow very simple instructions, vote for one of the others. If you want someone who will apply and follow the law take a look at me. And if you want to contribute to my campaign, I welcome the donation, but do not expect favorable or unfavorable rulings from me based on whether or not and in what sums you contributed. I cannot be bought or intimidated. I am not for sale at any price.
Sincerely yours,
Rachel Lea Hunter
Candidate for NC Supreme Court Associate Justice
PAID FOR BY THE RACHEL FOR SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE
P.O Box 332 | NW 1251 Maynard Road | Cary, North Carolina 27513
Ph. (919) 386-0246 | Fax (919) 573-0902
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 10:36 PM
Subject: letter to the editor
Once again a sign has been stolen and this time it is mine--and no it wasn't today's winds. As a local committee man I've been hearing the same reports from others as signs are replaced and then again stolen for the past two weeks or so. Practically every Bush-Cheney sign in my immediate neighborhood has been removed unless it was on the inside of a window. I have heard similar reports from all over the region. When I tell Kerry supporters, they claim that Kerry signs are the ones being removed, but as I drive around my area all I see are Kerry signs in front yards.
It's a shame that we live in a city with the mentality of one party mob rule that finds no room for, or feel they can even tolerate opposition In their zeal to further their candidate's position they somehow think that by removing someone's sign that may intimidate them into voting for another candidate. I suppose that is what is to be expected in a city that has no tolerance for diversity in political views...it's no wonder we find it so hard to pull our city out of its poor fiscal situation and attract new residents.
Dan Cohen
Squirrel Hill
Post a Comment