Absentee ballots are out
Below is an observation from a 3rd District voter on what campaign literature says about the candidates.
Got my mail-in ballot for the 3rd District today, along with post cards from the Lovelace and Plumley [campaigns]. Both were fluff pieces, but that’s par for the course when it comes to political mailers.
The Lovelace campaign sent just one postcard, which it says was “eco-printed” (whatever that means). Smiley photo with family on the front; awkwardly posed pix of Lovelace with Chesbro and Wooley on the back. Simple, professional-looking, gets the job done.
The Plumley campaign, meanwhile, sent me FOUR postcards, all four having the same picture on the front: awkwardly posed pic with Wheetley. Two arrived yesterday, two today. At first glance, I thought they were all exact duplicates, but then I noticed as I was writing this that there were two different versions of the text on the back.
Doesn’t seem like a very good use of money and paper: Having the exact same picture on the front pretty much guarantees that 99% of recipients will assume that all but the first card are duplicates and toss the other three directly into the recycling bin. Getting four postcards in two days with the same photograph on the front kinda makes you wonder about the competence and judgement of those running the Plumley campaign, and by extension the candidate himself. Is this the kind of private-sector “efficiency” that Plumley is promising to bring to government? At least the Lovelace campaign knows how to eliminate duplicate mailing addresses, and didn’t waste four postcards with the same photo on the front.
And now that I am looking more closely, I also see that the Lovelace campaign used the bulk “presorted” mailing rate, while the Plumley campaign slapped a 26 cent first-class stamp on each postcard. So that’s more than a dollar for just postage for all four cards combined. Again, not exactly “efficient.” How many voters are there in the 3rd district? Multiply that by about 80 cents of wasted postage (sending four postcards compared to sending just one postcard) and you will learn how many thousands of dollars of campaign money that the Plumley campaign threw away on the duplicate postcards.
As far as content, the one thing that really jumped out at me from the text on one of today’s postcards was Plumley’s statement that began with “As the only moderate in this race…” So that implies that Lovelace and Pitino are both “immoderate?” Or “radical?”
So I didn’t learn much from the content, but from the mailing strategy itself, I learned that the Plumley campaign doesn’t mind wasting thousands of their donors’ dollars on first-class postage, apparently wants to send me the same photo repeatedly, and seemingly doesn’t know how to eliminate duplicate records in a database. Do I want this guy handling my tax money? I don’t think so
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
 | Anonymous on Eureka Police lose big in Mart… |
| Anonymous on A Performance Review for Phil… |
| i can T stop thinkin… on BLIND ITEM | |
| Anonymous on Hank Larrabee – Humboldt Count… |
| Anonymous on Hank Larrabee – Humboldt Count… |
 | Anum08 on Another “Golden rule… |
 | Adobe crack on Another “Golden rule… |
Top Posts & Pages
The Humboldt Herald 
Plumley’s action’s speak louder than words…
waste not… we want not.
So you didn’t get a mailer from Bryan Plumley’s $500.00 club, being headed up by the infamous Chris Crawford?
As a prominent Eureka Republican, Crawford is known for his work on Rex Bohn’s campaign for city council, for in being the lone opponent to Measure T, and for supporting Virginia Bass, amongst other Republican agenda items.
Now he is joining his fellow Republican’s in supporting Bryan Plumly in Bryan’s quest for bringing laiza faire capitalism to Humboldt County.
I know how well that whole, “less regulation” concept has worked with everything from Savings and Loans to the mortgage industry on a national level, so I can’t wait to see what it can do for us locally.
Actually, that’s a simple data management error by a volunteer. It could happen in any campaign, and probably has happened in any campaign that sends out more than a few hundred mailers.
Chalk that up to an inexperienced campaign manager and a candidate who has never done bulk mailings himself. So criticism may more properly lay in who he has chosen to surround himself with.
You know what that implies, middle of the road, conservative on some issues, liberal on others. It’s a dumb claim though because republicans will vote for him anyway. If he wants any Lovelace or Pitino voters, he should be positioning himself as far left as possible.
11:04 wrote: “Chris Crawford…being the lone opponent to Measure T,”.
There were many opponents to Measure T, myself being one of them. I did the NO on T web page.
11:53 said: “…so criticism may properly lay it who he has chosen to surround himself with.”
What I said was “kinda makes you wonder about the competence and judgement of those running the Plumley campaign, and by extension the candidate himself.”
I said “…by extension the candidate himself,” because his choice of staff and volunteers to conduct his campaign is an example of his own judgement and who he “surrounds himself with,” as you put it. If he’s wasting thousands of campaign donor dollars on multiple mailings of the same photos, using first-class stamps instead of bulk rate, has a mailing list full of duplicates, etc., it seems that his choice of who to “surround himself with” reflects poorly on his judgement of their competence.
endorsed by Jill Geist (I assume that means he has Rose’s support too)
his $500 club chaired by Chris Crawford
And he thought that Arkley’s Home Depot on the Balloon Tract was a good idea.
I think I have heard enough.
My apologies Fred, one of two opponents.
O.K., we get it, Bryan is supported by the far right, but he a registered Democrat, doesn’t that count for something?
A registered Democrat.
You mean like George Wallace and Zell Miller?
Ahh, shall we drum up ridiculous comparisons for Lovelace and Pitino too?
I just read this at Sillanpaa’s blog:
Anonymous said…
As you may know by now, he bounced once again. GFS resigned from the E-R today.
May 6, 2008 1:15 AM
That would be Glenn Franco Simmons.
Yea, that’s a cheap shot, Bryan is much more like a So Cal Republican then he is like a DixieCrat.
If we just let the developers have their way, we too can be like the worse of Orange County or the rest of So Cal.
Heard Plumley is getting shovels of cash from Mr. A.
Did you bother to Google the news coverage of Measure T??? They had widespread opposition from progressives and conservatives alike. On that subject, have you asked your boy Loveless if he supports that patently unconstitutional and ineffective joke of a law?
Only those unconcerned with severe legal blows to Constitutionally protected democracy for everyone in America supported Measure T.
Peace be with you
The ER is afloat.
link
love eternal
tad
Peace
Damn links
love
tad
“while the Plumley campaign slapped a 26 cent first-class stamp on each postcard.”
I just got a post card from John Vevoda, the Republican in the 1st District supervisor race. It didn’t say much and it was postmarked with 41 cents – First Class – from a Fortuna postage meter.
Paying about 20 cents too much for what, 5000 pieces? It only wastes a thousand bucks. About three weeks work to a lot o’ stiffs. But no biggie to the Republican Central Committee.
Go Jimmy, Go Mark, Go Estelle!
WHAT??? Glenn is out? That’s news to all of us who read the Herald.
oh…and Fortuna is in the second district, not the first. Wonder whose postage meter picked up that tab?
Cunning how you try to group Estelle in with Mark.
Hank broke the news last night and left a comment on this very blog to notify our good readers. Perhaps I should have put it on the front page.
Why shouldn’t we? Estelle and Mark are both the official endorsed local Democratic Party picks, and we’re voting Dem!!
Haha, woops! Perhaps it was a government donation to fund the regulators and planners.
No kidding 41 cents on a post card? That really is having money to burn!
On the other hand, it must really help out the U.S. Postal Service and helps keep it from privatization (but isn’t that exactly the kind of thing that Vevoda wants?)
So Heraldo, will you check with the ER and see if the rumor about Glenn is true?
Humboldt Democrats proudly support:
Mike Thompson, Congress
Wes Chesbro, State Assembly
Jimmy Smith, 1st District Supervisor
Estelle Fennell, 2nd District Supervisor
Mark Lovelace, 3rd District Supervisor
Hank talked to Judi Pollace yesterday who confirmed Simmons left “for personal reasons” and they are putting together an ad to hire a new editor. Sounds like it was an abrupt departure.
Proudly support as opposed to begrudgingly support as in some past elections of note.
Heraldo, it would be a nice little campaign if we gathered as many people as possible to submit job applications. You know, to help the ol’ paper out. Do you have a dog or cat who is qualified?
My dog or cat would never spend 12 hours on a computer without perusing the blogs, which is how Glenn defined his work habits. Those’ll be some tough shoes, boy howdy.
Right, except Glenn is out. Maybe your cat or dog’s computer habits are exactly what the ol’ paper needs.
Why be editor when you can get paid to rewrite press releases?
Oops on the last part.
Using a postage stamp? THAT’S what you have against the guy? Geezus.
No mention of the full page ad for Mark Lovelace a few Sundays ago – oh, ooops that was for Community Forest Team or some other such made up name with no reason to run an ad except…. ummmm…
Or the My Word for Lovelace in today’s paper – oh, ooops, that was Healthy Humboldt.
Could it be that Plumley is a genuine candidate WITHOUT a machine behind him?
No. He’s got the A team.
Wasting his campaign donors’ funds on duplicate mailings and unnecessary first-class postage is no skin off my nose, but it does make me wonder about his competence and the competence of those around him. If this is how Plumley spends money, I’m not crazy about the idea of making him one of the five people deciding on the county’s budget. If this is how he picks campaign staff, I’m not sure I want him helping to choose key county staff.
And the extra junk mail in our mailboxes is wasteful, and just plain annoying.
Ribeye, making stuff up isn’t funny.
Rob has made no secret of his support of Plumley, Vevoda and Rodoni. As we all know, Rob gives a lot of money to his favored candidates, more than legally allowed at least once. I would bet he is putting his money where his mouth is.
Sorry to break in,
….but what is with the Big Buildboard Sign on Hwy 101 asking for a Casino to be build near the Humboldt Hill offramp. Jim Hoff Properties????? Can a casino really be built in this property that routinely floods? Maybe a nuclear casino?
As you should know, Rose, Healthy Humboldt can’t endorse a candidate and didn’t mention Lovelace even in passing. Their opinion was that Plan A is the best choice and they supported that opinion with justification. They only asked that people contact their supervisors to give them their opinion on which plan they favor. Do you have a problem with that? Your dishonesty should be shocking, but just what would be expected from you.
That’s your hate making that guess.
No, it is my knowledge of Arkley’s history of campaign donations. He got a large fine a few years ago for donating more than the legal limit in local races. If you think he is telling people to vote for Plumley, Vevoda and Rodoni but not donating to their campaigns, you might not be a clear thinker. He and his various groups of developers and their flunkies have a lot of money riding on this election and the general plan these supervisors will be voting on.
Really? I think the Miller/Lovelace crowd knows just how to play that game. Looks like Humboldt Watershed Council” AKA “Healthy Humboldt” has a consultant in town, helping with “strategy” And just what “strategy” would that be? All these new names and talking points, and “strategically” placed, ummm, ads and things.
If it wasn’t for quotation marks and insinuations it’d be impossible to know what you’re talking about, Rose.
You think people shouldn’t be allowed to advocate for the general plan they favor, Rose? Healthy Humboldt is advocating for the plan they believe is best for the county, which as you well know they would be doing even if Lovelace wasn’t running for supervisor, with no mention of the election or candidates. Your pretense of outrage that Healthy Humboldt is advocating for Plan A because they might also be Lovelace supporters would be amusing but for your lack of concern about those supporting his pro-development opponent who are very vocal about both, claiming if Lovelace is elected plan A will be chosen and life as we know it will cease to exist. But then you are one of them, aren’t you?
Ahh, so your problem is one of interpreting reality. The past, present and perceived future are all mixed up together in your mind.
And your problem is the lack of a mind.
“Anonymous Says:
May 6, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Rob has made no secret of his support of Plumley, Vevoda and Rodoni. As we all know, Rob gives a lot of money to his favored candidates, more than legally allowed at least once. I would bet he is putting his money where his mouth is.”
I believe Mr. Arkley did NOT spend more than he was allowed on a campaign, but did make an error on the paperwork and forms that needed to be turned in. This was quickly fixed when it was brought to his attention.
Also, I hope there isn’t another casino built here. We already have more than we can support. I think they can be fun, but they are not generally what I think of an a positive addition to a community. They encourage gambling problems, and people spend their free time and money (which most of the patrons don’t have much of) indoors doing this unhealthy activity.
I think that Plumley is good candidate in the abstract sense. In the particular political context of the Humboldt land use battles, the deep pockets of the developer community, and the very tenuous balance of power on the Bd of Sups, however, selecting Plumley’s “moderate” politics in the traditionally progressive 3rd district will have a disproportionate impact on the political balance of the Bd of Sups. In fact I see Plumley’s election as a strongly empowering result for the developer lobby in Humboldt County, even if he is a well-intentioned man of moderate politics. Context matters.
Bryan would make a better Arcata City Council member than a 3rd district supervisor. Maybe he and Alex and Mark W. can work with local economic development folks to increase retail sales tax revenue for the City without imposing higher sales tax rates.
Mark Lovelace is best positioned to carry on the progressive tradition of the 3rd district on the Bd of Sups.
The FPPC report on the case lists 11 violation counts, including failures to disclose late contributions and to file the semi-annual campaign statements by the appropriate due dates, as well as failure to disclose an affiliated entity and its contribution — a point related to Security National’s $250,000 donation to the Citizens to Save California (Yes on Props. 74 and 76) campaign in 2005.
The semi-annual statement violations encompassed 17 separate donations, the largest of which were $250,000 each to the Citizens to Save California campaign and the 2004 Governor Schwarzenegger’s California Recovery Team; $100,000 each to the Republican Party Central Committee of Los Angeles County in 2004 and the Coalition for Employee Rights (Yes on Prop. 75) in 2005; and $80,000 to the California Republican Party in 2004.
Late contributions included a $12,000 donation to the Friends of Paul Gallegos campaign in 2004, $5,000 to McClintock for Lt. Governor in 2006 and $100,000 to Stop the Reiner Initiative (No on Prop. 82) in 2006.
Arkley was fined $38,500.
But I’m sure Arkley isn’t donating to the supervisorial candidates he supports. Why would he? LOL
So, none were too large, and all were statement/clerical issues?
He will for sure contribute to his favorite local candidate as well, as is his right to do.
Not disclosing disclosing and late contributions are more than filing clerical issues, but spin away.
No one said he didn’t have a right to donate, as do we all. An anonymous poster implied he wasn’t donating.
That should have said disclosing contributions
What do you know, Measure T isn’t doing a damn thing to stop big Arkley money flooding into this county election, just like Chirs Crawford and Greg Allen and Fred Mangels and Eric Kirk said it wouldn’t years ago. Only the die-hard Cobb-suckers from DUCK still think it was worth the poisonous campaign they ran.
Not disclosing and filing late are staff clerical errors in that case. The Arkleys know that all monies have to be given properly. A person with a legal background doesn’t take chances there. They don’t personally take care of those things. Their staff does. Some of these regulations change and are for very specific types of donations. It is typical of companies to make errors and then correct them. Spin away is right, but not every error is intentional. These are the kind of errors they would try to avoid.
It does stop outside corporations from contributing which is what it was meant to do. SN can’t make those huge donations in local elections anymore because they are an outside corporation by definition in Measure T. Arkley can still contribute personally which is how it should be.
They didn’t just file late, they contributed late. Big difference. Late contributions are illegal because they block full financial disclosure of campaign contributions.
So, you think they did it on purpose so people who vote without knowing who contributed? I guess their name on something would cause people to vote against it regardless of how they felt about the cause, and without really looking into it. That does make sense.
Nah 10:18, only people who would fund a push poll to make it look like it was funded by a candidate they don’t support would so something that underhanded.
not so, do
Tell me about that push poll.
http://www.northcoastjournal.com/042408/towndandy0424.html
Hank Sims: “Multiple people called the Journal with the same story — a long, all-encompassing poll touching on issues ranging from the Pacific Lumber bankruptcy to the proposed Home Depot-anchored Marina Center development in Eureka. (Somehow, these polls always get back to the Marina Center. Make of that what you will.) But the special focus and raison d’etre of this round of polling was, naturally, the current political race for the Third District Supervisorial seat between activist Mark Lovelace, financial planner Bryan Plumley and Arcata City Councilmember Paul Pitino.
The questions were slanted, of course. Would you be more or less likely to vote for Mark Lovelace if you knew he was an anti-growth far left environmental activist for pay? But it’s curious how they were slanted this time. Not toward Plumley, the more conventionally business-friendly of the three, but toward Pitino. According to one pollee, one such question was “Do you agree that Paul Pitino walks the walk?”
Well, well, well. If you happened to think that the poll was part of the Pitino campaign, please banish the thought from your head. The man raises no money and spends no money, and it’s not his style besides. No, what we’ve got here is someone getting clever. The idea appears to be to swiftboat Lovelace, the frontrunner, while making it look like it’s Pitino doing the swiftboating! People are getting much more sophisticated about these things.”
– – – – – – –
http://www.eurekareporter.com/article/080427-third-district-candidates-react-to-poll
Cerena Johnson: “From what each of the candidates heard from constituents, the poll was attempting to skew the questions in the manner of a push poll.
Pitino, who is not accepting political endorsements or advertising, said he didn’t understand the purpose of the poll, other than to spend money.
“I don’t do stuff like that,” he said. “I don’t condone or support anything like that. I’m into political reform.”
“It’s pretty third-handed,” he added.
Lovelace said he didn’t get a call about the poll.
“I heard from a number of people who did,” he said. Of the people he had heard from, he said it sounded like a very high sampling number, not just a representative sample from the community.
Plumley said the polling group phoned his wife.
From the people he spoke with, he said, many questions seemed to center around the Marina Center project.
Security National Sr. Vice President Brian Morrissey was contacted for comment but did not respond by The Eureka Reporter’s deadline.
Plumley said it would be preferable if “good, quality polls” are conducted so that policy leaders can utilize the information productively.
“It’s disappointing to hear there’s that kind of effort being made,” he said.”
– – – – –
Apparently Morrissey still hasn’t gotten back to the E-R about their question, or they decided not to report on it after all.
I wonder if Ms. Johnson still works at the ER.
vote no 98
yes on 99
From SoHum Parlance:
Property rights and trojan horses – no on 98, yes on 99
There are only two ballot propositions this June and they are competing proposals. Proposition 98 is a somewhat less draconian replay of last year’s Proposition 90 in an effort use the unpopular Supreme Court case on eminent domain of a few years back to muscle through more restrictions on the ability of government (or voters) to regulate. It’s a subtle thing. From the proposed law:
“Taken” includes transferring the ownership, occupancy, or use of property from a private owner to a public agency, or limiting the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy, or use his or her real property.”
In other words, somebody is trying to slip by a ban on rent control. It could also weaken land use zoning and environmental regulations depending on how the court’s interpret the law. It’s sneaky and disingenuous. Don’t fall for it.
Proposition 99 will prevent an owner/occupier from being subject to an eminent domain action which would transfer the property to another private owner, though it provides for a number of exceptions: public work or improvement, public health and safety protection, and crime prevention. It would not apply to commercial property.
Make no mistake, Proposition 99’s purpose is to kill Prop 98 and rectify eminent domain law once and for all to prevent future attempts to exploit the issue for hidden agendas.
Works for me. For more information visit :
http://www.no98yes99.com/
Peace be with you
What about people who are rich enough to give their children large sums of money to “donate” to the kids favorite candidate? Isn’t that sneaky also?
love eternal
tad
PS It sucks having to log on to use our picture thingy!
Sorry about the logging in thing.
The Arkley’s each gave the maximum donation to the same recipient on the same day a couple years ago. Oh, to be 18 with an extra $25,000 laying around to kick to the Republican party.
How does a $25K gift to a family member that is then regifted to a candidate work out tax-wise? I thought gifts of 15K or more trigger special rules.