Using his veto to call out Peduto was silly, juvenile and just like Ravenstahl. But using the example he did use made Luke look dumber than ever.
To summarize, Luke was explaining why putting a cap on personal contributions was a bad thing. Also bad was allowing "rich people" to fund their own campaigns using their own (unlimited) money.
Then Luke reminded folks that Peduto had accepted a $50,000 contribution from a single donor. He went on to accuse this donor of being "anti-union" and further posed a hypothetical of how awful it would be if that anti-union donor had decided to bypass Peduto, run himself, and use the $50,000 (or more) to finance (buy) his own election.
????
First, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled a person can use unlimited personal funds in their own campaign. So Luke is now telling the Supreme Court what to do?
Second, I thought Luke vetoed the bill because he was against caps for contributions. So what ..... he's against them unless it involves Peduto?
And third, that silly hypothetical. Is this guy under the influence of something?
Here's an interesting hypothetical for the Mayor: Let's assume two sign company executives blow in from Oregon and donate $25,000 to the mayor's campaign. Then lets assume the mayor grants them permits for two billboards Downtown where no billboards are presently permitted. These guys could then turn around and sell that sign space to a 3rd billboard company for $750,000 and make a HUGE instantaneous profit, rendering their $25,0000 "campaign contribution" to the mayor a mere pittance.
Oh wait. Didn't that already happen? Didn't the mayor do the exact quid pro quo mentioned above? And then have the unmitigated gall to attack Peduto on campaign donation irregularities which actually WERE hypothetical?
Is Luke nuts? Is he really that stupid? If so, isn't there someone around him who is any more capable? Who could at least advise him about Supreme Court rulings?
I can barely stand to read the news each day knowing it will be about the further adventures of our crack-pot mayor and his feckless posse.
Recent Comments
To summarize, Luke was explaining why putting a cap on personal contributions was a bad thing. Also bad was allowing "rich people" to fund their own campaigns using their own (unlimited) money.
Then Luke reminded folks that Peduto had accepted a $50,000 contribution from a single donor. He went on to accuse this donor of being "anti-union" and further posed a hypothetical of how awful it would be if that anti-union donor had decided to bypass Peduto, run himself, and use the $50,000 (or more) to finance (buy) his own election.
????
First, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled a person can use unlimited personal funds in their own campaign. So Luke is now telling the Supreme Court what to do?
Second, I thought Luke vetoed the bill because he was against caps for contributions. So what ..... he's against them unless it involves Peduto?
And third, that silly hypothetical. Is this guy under the influence of something?
Here's an interesting hypothetical for the Mayor: Let's assume two sign company executives blow in from Oregon and donate $25,000 to the mayor's campaign. Then lets assume the mayor grants them permits for two billboards Downtown where no billboards are presently permitted. These guys could then turn around and sell that sign space to a 3rd billboard company for $750,000 and make a HUGE instantaneous profit, rendering their $25,0000 "campaign contribution" to the mayor a mere pittance.
Oh wait. Didn't that already happen? Didn't the mayor do the exact quid pro quo mentioned above? And then have the unmitigated gall to attack Peduto on campaign donation irregularities which actually WERE hypothetical?
Is Luke nuts? Is he really that stupid? If so, isn't there someone around him who is any more capable? Who could at least advise him about Supreme Court rulings?
I can barely stand to read the news each day knowing it will be about the further adventures of our crack-pot mayor and his feckless posse.