Bacon's Rebellion

Criminalizing the Opposition

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

The intra-Republican feuding is getting ugly — as nasty as anything between Virginia Republicans and Democrats. From Leesburg2day comes the report that the campaign of Del. Joe May, R-33, has filed a formal complaint alleging that his challenger, Christopher Oprison, has violated numerous campaign laws.

The complaint, filed with Loudoun Commonwealth’s Attorney Jim Plowman and Clarke County Commonwealth’s Attorney Suzanne M. Perka, potentially could lead to criminal and civil charges against Oprison and members of his campaign staff, and disqualification of Oprison from the ballot. The offenses range, according to Leesburg2day, from the Oprison campaign having an ineligible campaign worker collect signatures and sign affidavits to accusations of tampered and mishandled documents. Sayeth Leesburg2Day:

Many of the complaints center around 22-year-old Andrew Tyrell, a Patrick Henry College student working for Oprison. Tyrell came from Florida and apparently was registered to vote there until May’s campaign raised questions with the local Republican Party shortly after the petitions were delivered about whether he was an eligible Virginia voter. Tyrell’s car was also registered in Florida.

Tyrell signed many of the affidavits verifying the signature on the campaign petition forms. The form states that the person signing must be at least 18, have no felony convictions and be eligible to vote in Virginia. After the concern was raised, Tyrell registered to vote in Virginia, an action confirmed by the local electoral board.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

  1. Jason Kenney Avatar
    Jason Kenney

    The form states that the person signing must be at least 18, have no felony convictions and be eligible to vote in Virginia. After the concern was raised, Tyrell registered to vote in Virginia, an action confirmed by the local electoral board.

    So does eligibility mean they must currently be registered or able to register and thereby vote? I think that’s going to be where this hinges for Oprisson

  2. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    You have to be registered to vote in the district.

    What’s with these Patrick Henry College students helping right-wingers all the time? Dick Black brings an army in every 2 years…

  3. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Speaking of “Criminalizing the Opposition,” get out this post on Raising Kaine:

    http://www.raisingkaine.com/blog/?p=227

    Looks like the Dems are hoping like mad that Bolling will be the LG nominee. Not only is he easily beatable in November, but he hurts Kilgore as well.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If the Dems are mad with Bolling, then we KNOW we have the right guy!

    As for May and Parrish, the slash-and-burn politicking certainly isn’t helping the GOP. First the tax hike, now the legal attacks on their challengers.

    I don’t get what they have to be so afraid of (other than losing to Oprison and Chapman). What gives? For an incumbent to do this now, it just seems highly irrational to me. . . just run the campaign and beat ’em clean.

    Anyone who is looking at the Chapman race can tell you it’s received new life thanks to going after his dog. Why would May create the same mistake?

  5. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Everyone: let’s review.

    HTML works in the following way:

    You put ““

    Then you put the text you want displayed as the hyperlink.

    Then you put ““

    Please do this and more people will actually follow your link.

  6. Paul Avatar
    Paul

    Whoops…it took my example text and made it into real html.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Thanks for the html lesson.

    Back to criminalizing the oppositon:

    Eligible to vote means “eligible to vote” not “registered to vote.”

    The fact that Oprison’s rightwing PHC kid is now registered in VA means he was “eligible.”

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ditto on that. I’m just not seeing the point, unless its to take a challenger’s time and waste it on pointless legal proceedings.

    I hope it bites these guys (May, Parrish, and now Connaughton it seems) in the butt.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The pattern of using the criminal charges and/or threats is not new to the GOP establishment. It was used to punish Mike Rothfeld for having the temerity to run against John Chichester (criminal charge re no disclaimer at the bottom of 1 flyer, instead of the usual State Board of Elections $50 fine), and Potts threatened Mark Tate with it, in one of his characteristically caustic letters as well. Both of these were after their races were over.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    First of all in the case of Rothfeld, the original charge was related to nine flyers and he pled to one charge as a settlement. Second, Rothfeld is a political consultant and while it may have been oversight to miss the disclaimer on one piece, it is clear intent when he does it repeatedly. He knew he was breaking the law and he did it willfully, with full knowledge and with absolute intent.

    As to the three current examples:

    Parrish should have gone after Chapman. The kid CLEARLY did not live in the tenement housing portrayed in the stories. He was breaking the law clear and simple. This is a substantive charge and Chapman’s home and garden tour with the WaPo report is clear proof he was not living there and clear proof he is too dumb to be in office. He just needs to go away. And good job to Robin and the rest of the nitwits at VCAP who said they checked his papers. Nice going, pinheads.

    The May thing, on the other hand, is a bit silly. Incorrectly sized petitions? Leaving a petition overnight unattended? This looks extremely petty and desperate on Joe’s part. Where the Parrish thing is pretty solid and substantive, Joe’s case is all about technicalities that only bureaucrats would care about. Joe needs to forget this nonsense and run his race hard or he will end up with his ass kicked.

    As for Connaughton, the ROA thing was inevitably going to come up. Who knows if this is substantive or smear at this point. No one seems to have all the facts and there are many points of disagreement. All I know is that if Connaughton wants to keep charging down this path, there better be something substantive there that goes beyond innuendo or he is going to be killed on June 14.

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One more thing…when the previous poster writes: “It was used to punish Mike Rothfeld for having the temerity to run against John Chichester” I want to puke.

    No, it was used to punish Mike Rothfeld for breaking the law. Maybe now Mike will learn that running campaigns that depend on illegal tactics like anonymous smear flyers and such is not such a bright idea.

    How can you call yourself a good Christian candidate while you run a dishonest campaign that violates the law and lies about your opponents is beyond me. And this is not just about Chichester. It is every race this goon touches. It is about time someone put a stop to it.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Puke? Smear flyers?

    You sure you’re talking about Rothfeld and not Chichester?!

    Rothfeld says Chichester will raise our taxes, John calls Mike a liar, the press excoriates Rothfeld, Chichester wins and guess what happens. . .

    Rothfeld was right. The sooner folks wise up and take a lesson, the better off the GOP in Virginia is going to be.

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I am not going to argue the tax point. It is a fair hit. No doubt. But I do not see what is wrong with requiring Rothfeld or any other political consultant to follow the laws on the books and then holding them accountable when they don’t. I do not like what Chichester did any more than any other conservative, but I am not sure that passing out anonymous flyers saying Chichester wanted to teach sodomy to five year olds was any more legitimate. It was garbage and it made Rothfeld look like an out of control fool.

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT