Jeremy
05-01-2008, 04:58 AM
Yesterday:
"Open Letter to my Opponent"
I understand you have been extremely busy articulating your unquestioning loyalty to the GOP platform, and supporting blatantly unconstitutional federal power-grabs like the federal “war on drugs”. But one consequence of the unwieldy and unconstitutional federal government that you advocate is that our campaigns are subject to a wide variety of rules and regulations.
One particular requirement with which you might familiarize yourself is the Pre-Primary Report that must be filed with the FEC. Just to save you the trouble of checking your P.O. Box, I’ve made your Failure to File Letter available here.
Your campaign was notified of your failure to file the Pre-Primary Report back on April 25th, and given four business days to remedy that deficiency before the FEC published the violation. Apparently your campaign chose not to file the report, because the FEC published your Failure to File Letter on its Web site. To quote:
"IT HAS COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION THAT YOU MAY HAVE FAILED TO FILE THE ABOVE REFERENCED REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES AS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT, AS AMENDED.
YOU WILL BE ALLOWED FOUR (4) BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO FILE THIS REPORT TO AVOID PUBLICATION.
…
IN ADDITION, THE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THIS REPORT MAY RESULT IN CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES, AN AUDIT OR OTHER LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION. THE CIVIL MONEY PENALTY CALCULATION FOR LATE REPORTS DOES NOT INCLUDE A GRACE PERIOD AND BEGINS ON THE DAY FOLLOWING THE DUE DATE FOR THE REPORT."
You might consider filing this report, or it may appear that you have no more respect for our campaign regulations than you do for the original “contract with America”, our United States Constitution.
http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/
Today:
"Cho vs. Lawson"
I have been advised to respond to my opponent’s “Cho vs. Lawson” page on his Web site, where he trivializes my positions on a number of important issues in an effort to draw overly simplistic comparisons. I do not believe his approach will resonate with the intelligent voters of the Fourth District, who have often told me that they appreciate the nuanced discussions of the issues on our Web site and in our campaign blog.
One important distinction is that my opponent consistently fails to differentiate between the Constitutional role of the federal government versus the appropriate domain of state and local governments. Beyond that difference, however, I am not going to compare myself to my opponent based upon the issues. I have already enumerated the issues most critical to our nation’s physical and economic security at this crucial time.
Instead, I am going to compare myself to my opponent based upon a different, but equally important, set of criteria: transparency and honesty. My campaign reflects the way I believe government should operate: an honest discussion of the issues, openness to questions, and transparency in operation. This commitment is reflected in our real-time fundraising ticker, my being available for questions, engaging in discussion on our campaign blog, and encouraging voters to personally engage with me and my family as fellow citizens.
Mr. Cho, however, feels otherwise. During this “job interview” for public service, he has repeatedly avoided questions about his background, current occupation, and fitness for office. In fact, I was surprised to learn that my opponent actually threatened legal action against a long-time party activist who persisted in asking him a number of basic questions. Not only did my opponent retain an attorney to send a threatening letter to this retired lady, who is currently fighting cancer, he also distributed that letter to the Fourth District Executive Committee and members of the NC GOP leadership.
His email with this threatening letter from his attorney is posted for your review. Is such behavior fitting for a Congressional candidate? What kind of candidate makes a statement like:
If she has told you anything derogatory about me, it is in your best interest to not believe it or repeated [sic] it.
Is he threatening the reader?
His justification for threatening this lady was a claim of “slander”. However, my opponent should realize that applying for federal office is an invitation to have your fitness for office questioned and tested on a daily basis. Threats and refusing to answer questions do not make the questions go away.
As a result, this individual responded appropriately. Her attorney replied with a letter questioning the slander claim when she was simply reflecting questions being raised by the broader community. The letter from her attorney, with the associated questions and documentation, is available here. I’m not going to list all the questions, but here are a few:
* Questions are being asked about your current occupation. When asked, you have told people that you are an “author”. However, you stated in a personal interview on December 5, 2007 that you have made no money from writing or the sale of your books. By what manner do you currently generate income? If you are not generating income yourself, how do you pay for the expenses of daily living?
* You have maintained that you are, or were, an ordained Presbyterian minister. When and where were you ordained? At which churches did you serve, and for how long? Can you provide professional references regarding your career as a pastor?
* Public record searches report that you own no real estate. Do you own any real estate, and if so, where? The house at which you are registered to vote (106 Aster Place) is owned by Mona Lee. Is 106 Aster Place your permanent residence? There is another property in Chapel Ridge also owned by Mona Lee. Who is Mona Lee, and how are you related to her?
* Public records indicate that you had a Delaware driver’s license, and no North Carolina driver’s license, until just before you filed to run for Congress in February. Public records further indicate you were cited for not having complied with North Carolina’s change of address/driver’s license law (NCGS 20-7.1), seen in court on 7/26/2007. When did you finally obtain a North Carolina driver’s license? Did you just move to North Carolina in 2007, or did you move to North Carolina in 2005 and violate North Carolina motor vehicle laws for two years?
* Public records indicate that you were cited for violating NCGS 20-174.1 in July of 2007: “No person shall willfully stand, sit, or lie upon the highway or street in such a manner as to impede the regular flow of traffic”, seen in court on 7/26/2007. Why?
* You stated to members of the Fourth District Executive Committee on November 13, 2007 that you have not paid back your student loan debt. How much student loan debt and/or other debt do you have outstanding, and how much is overdue? Are these federally subsidized student loans? Are these loans in default, and what are your plans for paying them back? Will you authorize a credit report?
Does anyone believe that a candidate who cannot answer these questions in a satisfactory fashion, or is unwilling to do so, is a viable candidate against David Price? How can the leadership of the Fourth District not insist on these questions being answered by a candidate who could potentially represent the Republican party? Isn’t it time we expect more of our elected representatives? And what on earth was he doing standing, sitting, or lying upon the highway in such a manner as to impede the regular flow of traffic?
Before you cast your vote, remember: character matters.
See actual blog post for links to the letters and such: http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/cho-vs-lawson/
"Open Letter to my Opponent"
I understand you have been extremely busy articulating your unquestioning loyalty to the GOP platform, and supporting blatantly unconstitutional federal power-grabs like the federal “war on drugs”. But one consequence of the unwieldy and unconstitutional federal government that you advocate is that our campaigns are subject to a wide variety of rules and regulations.
One particular requirement with which you might familiarize yourself is the Pre-Primary Report that must be filed with the FEC. Just to save you the trouble of checking your P.O. Box, I’ve made your Failure to File Letter available here.
Your campaign was notified of your failure to file the Pre-Primary Report back on April 25th, and given four business days to remedy that deficiency before the FEC published the violation. Apparently your campaign chose not to file the report, because the FEC published your Failure to File Letter on its Web site. To quote:
"IT HAS COME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION THAT YOU MAY HAVE FAILED TO FILE THE ABOVE REFERENCED REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES AS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN ACT, AS AMENDED.
YOU WILL BE ALLOWED FOUR (4) BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE TO FILE THIS REPORT TO AVOID PUBLICATION.
…
IN ADDITION, THE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE THIS REPORT MAY RESULT IN CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES, AN AUDIT OR OTHER LEGAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION. THE CIVIL MONEY PENALTY CALCULATION FOR LATE REPORTS DOES NOT INCLUDE A GRACE PERIOD AND BEGINS ON THE DAY FOLLOWING THE DUE DATE FOR THE REPORT."
You might consider filing this report, or it may appear that you have no more respect for our campaign regulations than you do for the original “contract with America”, our United States Constitution.
http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/open-letter-to-my-opponent/
Today:
"Cho vs. Lawson"
I have been advised to respond to my opponent’s “Cho vs. Lawson” page on his Web site, where he trivializes my positions on a number of important issues in an effort to draw overly simplistic comparisons. I do not believe his approach will resonate with the intelligent voters of the Fourth District, who have often told me that they appreciate the nuanced discussions of the issues on our Web site and in our campaign blog.
One important distinction is that my opponent consistently fails to differentiate between the Constitutional role of the federal government versus the appropriate domain of state and local governments. Beyond that difference, however, I am not going to compare myself to my opponent based upon the issues. I have already enumerated the issues most critical to our nation’s physical and economic security at this crucial time.
Instead, I am going to compare myself to my opponent based upon a different, but equally important, set of criteria: transparency and honesty. My campaign reflects the way I believe government should operate: an honest discussion of the issues, openness to questions, and transparency in operation. This commitment is reflected in our real-time fundraising ticker, my being available for questions, engaging in discussion on our campaign blog, and encouraging voters to personally engage with me and my family as fellow citizens.
Mr. Cho, however, feels otherwise. During this “job interview” for public service, he has repeatedly avoided questions about his background, current occupation, and fitness for office. In fact, I was surprised to learn that my opponent actually threatened legal action against a long-time party activist who persisted in asking him a number of basic questions. Not only did my opponent retain an attorney to send a threatening letter to this retired lady, who is currently fighting cancer, he also distributed that letter to the Fourth District Executive Committee and members of the NC GOP leadership.
His email with this threatening letter from his attorney is posted for your review. Is such behavior fitting for a Congressional candidate? What kind of candidate makes a statement like:
If she has told you anything derogatory about me, it is in your best interest to not believe it or repeated [sic] it.
Is he threatening the reader?
His justification for threatening this lady was a claim of “slander”. However, my opponent should realize that applying for federal office is an invitation to have your fitness for office questioned and tested on a daily basis. Threats and refusing to answer questions do not make the questions go away.
As a result, this individual responded appropriately. Her attorney replied with a letter questioning the slander claim when she was simply reflecting questions being raised by the broader community. The letter from her attorney, with the associated questions and documentation, is available here. I’m not going to list all the questions, but here are a few:
* Questions are being asked about your current occupation. When asked, you have told people that you are an “author”. However, you stated in a personal interview on December 5, 2007 that you have made no money from writing or the sale of your books. By what manner do you currently generate income? If you are not generating income yourself, how do you pay for the expenses of daily living?
* You have maintained that you are, or were, an ordained Presbyterian minister. When and where were you ordained? At which churches did you serve, and for how long? Can you provide professional references regarding your career as a pastor?
* Public record searches report that you own no real estate. Do you own any real estate, and if so, where? The house at which you are registered to vote (106 Aster Place) is owned by Mona Lee. Is 106 Aster Place your permanent residence? There is another property in Chapel Ridge also owned by Mona Lee. Who is Mona Lee, and how are you related to her?
* Public records indicate that you had a Delaware driver’s license, and no North Carolina driver’s license, until just before you filed to run for Congress in February. Public records further indicate you were cited for not having complied with North Carolina’s change of address/driver’s license law (NCGS 20-7.1), seen in court on 7/26/2007. When did you finally obtain a North Carolina driver’s license? Did you just move to North Carolina in 2007, or did you move to North Carolina in 2005 and violate North Carolina motor vehicle laws for two years?
* Public records indicate that you were cited for violating NCGS 20-174.1 in July of 2007: “No person shall willfully stand, sit, or lie upon the highway or street in such a manner as to impede the regular flow of traffic”, seen in court on 7/26/2007. Why?
* You stated to members of the Fourth District Executive Committee on November 13, 2007 that you have not paid back your student loan debt. How much student loan debt and/or other debt do you have outstanding, and how much is overdue? Are these federally subsidized student loans? Are these loans in default, and what are your plans for paying them back? Will you authorize a credit report?
Does anyone believe that a candidate who cannot answer these questions in a satisfactory fashion, or is unwilling to do so, is a viable candidate against David Price? How can the leadership of the Fourth District not insist on these questions being answered by a candidate who could potentially represent the Republican party? Isn’t it time we expect more of our elected representatives? And what on earth was he doing standing, sitting, or lying upon the highway in such a manner as to impede the regular flow of traffic?
Before you cast your vote, remember: character matters.
See actual blog post for links to the letters and such: http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/04/30/cho-vs-lawson/