 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
August 2009
More KVUE Blogs
|
Disclaimer: This following post will only be interesting to you if you are a level five political nerd or higher. (Not sure how many levels there are, let's assume five is high.) With municipal election day just a day away here in ATX, the dueling campaigns of incumbent Jennifer Kim and challenger Randi Shade have gotten bogged down in a dizzying fight over law enforcement's endorsement of Shade. Those of us in the press were already weary by Wednesday's round three -- or was it round four -- when Kim's consultant, Elliott McFadden, came out to reiterate its controversial robocall's claim that Shade promised law enforcement increased staff. This was followed by law enforcement's counter press conference, which was followed by the Kim camp's counter-counter-rebuttal... or something. The robocall, released last week, was controversial for a couple of reasons: 1.) It asserted that Shade's call for increased staff was a "promise" and insinuated that it was a quid-pro-quo for an endorsement. Shade - and law enforcement - immediately hit back, saying no such promise was made, especially not for an endorsement. Even though the only primary sources called foul on this claim, the Kim campaign "stood by" their statements by citing a secondary source -- the editorial page of the Statesman. 2.) The source of the call was only identified as "your neighbor Lisa". Weeell, turns out it was actually the Kim campaign, cloaked behind the electronic voice of "Lisa". (McFadden says Lisa is a friend of his, and a friend of the campaign.) Public Utilities Commission statute requires automated robocalls to identify the source of the call. Law enforcement groups were doubtful "Lisa" would qualify, and said they'd file a complaint. But tonight - the Austin Chronicle discovers where the robocall meets the road: On Wednesday, after the law enforcement presser (which was a response to the Kim presser), Kim's consultant McFadden rushes BACK into the press conference room to get in the final word. He said he spoke with the PUC on Monday and that there's "nothing illegal about the call... they said it was fine". (He also told me this in Monday night's animated phone call.) According to the Austin Chronicle, not only is Kim's robocall still a possible violation, Kim's consultant McFadden could be in far more serious trouble. He's been running automated calls for years from his shop, Ignite Consulting, which was founded in 2003. But a spokesman for the Public Utility Commission, Terry Hadley, told the Chron that Ignite Consulting filed only this Monday for a required permit to operate an automated calling service. OK. So it is TRUE Ignite talked with the PUC on Monday. It is NOT true the PUC cleared Kim's robocall from possible fines: In fact, said Hadley, Ignite Consulting had come into the PUC on Monday to apply - extremely belatedly - for a basic permit, not to get its script approved. "The PUC does not approve scripts," said Hadley. "We never saw any kind of script, or knew what might have been said on the message," he clarified. "The permit should have been obtained in advance, and that was not done." The application Monday was for a new permit, not a renewal.The Chron says fines up to $1,000 a day could be coming for Ignite consulting. 1 CommentsLeave a comment |
|
|
There's too much politics in Texas to fit into a newscast, so the fun continues here.
Categories
Powered by Movable Type 4.1 |
|
I love how a "reporter" for the "unbiased" media threatens a consultant for personal reasons, and then, gets quoted by a great reporter on an accredited site.
This reminds me when Austin Political Report wrote some bias, un-researched stuff, and Burnt Orange Report regurgitated it word for word. Note to press, mainstream or not, check your sources and get out of the echo chamber.
Did anyone call the PUC and see if charges were really filed? How about whether the PUC was going to be fining the consultants? How about if the calls were made in state or protect by the election code or protected as political speech?
This seems to be a bogus story written by a person with a grudge. Why is the media giving Randi's campaign such a pass on these stories? Last I saw they have gone after everyone of Jennifer's campaign staffers personally and launched the negative campaigning first?
I am not voting for any of these people. Ever. And it is sad to see that the Chronicle has gone from trusted news for progressives to a waste of paper.