Jun 11, 2009

Senate Republicans stage illegal political stunt in campaign for 19th District Senate seat.

Rep. Martin Griffin, D-Jackson, established his campaign web site as his run for the vacant seat in the 19th State Senate District gets underway.

The seat was vacated last November with the election of former Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, to the U.S. House. Gov. Granholm set primary election for Aug. 4, and the General Election is Nov. 3. Griffin officially kicked off the campaign on May 30 with events in the two counties in the 19th District, most of Jackson County and all of Calhoun County.

The Senate Republicans are desperate to win this seat back and maintain their slim four-seat lead. The Senate Republicans have been the biggest obstacle to getting meaningful legislation passed, and retention of this seat will be the first step in Democrats taking back the Senate in 2010 for the first time since 1983.

Republicans have become so desperate that they are pulling some questionable stunts. On Wednesday they staged a Senate Committee hearing to showcase the leading GOP candidate, former Rep. Mike Nofs, R-Battle Creek; just one of three GOP candidates for the seat.

According to subscription only MIRS, Nofs was featured in a Senate Majority Caucus press release, and he testified at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Wednesday on two bills to help Duncan Aviation retain jobs, even though Nofs had nothing to do with the bills. This is a clear case of using state resources for a political campaign.

Senate Bill 624, sponsored by Sen. Jason Allen, R- Traverse City, and House Bill 4930, sponsored by Rep. Rep. Kate Segal, D-Battle Creek, would provide tax breaks to help Duncan Aviation of Battle Creek save 100 jobs.

Nofs is no longer in the Legislature, and he did not have anything to do with the bills. It’s clear why he testified instead of the bill’s sponsor, and the reason is pure politics. Senate Republicans are politicizing jobs, and politicizing the Legislative process for campaign purposes and pure political gain.

Griffin grew up in Jackson and graduated from the University of Michigan. He has experience in both the public and private sector, working as a Realtor for many years. Griffin was elected Jackson's mayor in 1995 and for the twelve years he served the city his focus was on bringing in new investment by cleaning up and redeveloping downtown areas, streamlining the permitting process to cut red tape, and balancing the city budget without raising taxes.

He was elected in 2006 to the House from the 64th District Griffin is also very involved with a number of local organizations, including the Economic Development Corporation of Jackson, the Downtown Kiwanis Club, the Ella Sharp Park Board, Cascade Capital Humane Society, Jackson County Brownfield Redevelopment Authority, Police and Fire Pension Boards and the National Association of Realtors.


Not Anonymous said...

And the illegal part? You said they staged an "Illegal political stunt". What's illegal about what was done?

Communications guru said...

The last sentence in the fifth paragraph, brett.

kevins said...

More lies from the guru.

1. There was no law broken. Although he seems shocked -- shocked -- that a politician might do something political. Surely no Democrat ever uses resources of his/her office to promote himself/herself. Even if true, this is so minor as to be laughable. But to use guru's standard when he defends perverted old Democratic men who pay for sex with prostitutes: If he broke the law, show me where he was charged; show me where he was convicted.

2. Odd you would talk about law-breaking in the same breath of Schauer whose campaign had a record breaking violation of campaign finance laws. He ran a crooked campaign, but he's a Democrat so it is all right with guru.

3. Speaking of using taxpayer resources inappropriately, guru failed to show any outrage when dillon sent taxpayer-paid staff down to help muscle out people trying to circulate recall petitions against him. (Predictable guru response: but, but, but drolet was doing illegal things to get those signatures. Even if true..which it isn't..that doesn't justify dillon's abuse of taxpayer dollars.

4. Speaking of doing political work on the taxpayer dime, how much of that must guru be doing with his frequent posting on this political site. If he isn't doing this on work time, he must have the most limited part-time hours in history.

5. Don't expect much of a lucid response. This guy contends there is no corruption in Detroit city government.

Communications guru said...

I have never lied, brett.

1. Clearly, a law was broken. The question is will it be prosecuted, and with the current Secretary of State, I guarantee it will not. However, that does not mean it’s not a violation. I’m not shocked at all. Amused is a better word. Amused at how desperate you guys are. In light of the annual State of the State Survey, conducted by the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, that says just 20 percent identified themselves as Republicans I can understand how desperate you are. Of course politicians use their office to promote themselves. What office does Nofs hold, Brett? I have never “defended perverted old Democratic men who pay for sex with prostitutes,” and I have no idea who you are even talking about.

2. Schauer was prosecuted, and paid the price. It was far from the record, and the violation was made because the law was unclear.

3. Because it never happened. You are, however, right that drolet was doing illegal things to get his signatures.

4. Prove it. File a complaint, brett.

5. “Don't expect much of a lucid response?” What you mean, brett, is there will be no response you agree with, and no response you can debunk. I have never said there is no corruption in Detroit city government.

Republican Michigander said...

That is a bald faced lie. There is nothing illegal about what happened. Nothing illegal. It may be pork barrell politics, but not illegal. If it was illegal, the state money would be going to "Nofs for Senate." That's not the case.

Does your boss know that you are breaking the law yourself with your reckless disgregard of the facts in your accusations of criminal conduct?

Not Anonymous said...

2. http://www.usatoday.com/topics/quote/Battle+Creek/02JI0y79QwfxU/08tX6w53xwetC/0

You're caught in a lie. It was the largest fine ever levied.

Communications guru said...

Sorry, like I said, just because Land won’t prosecute that does not mean it’s not illegal. No, how can he? I’m not making “a reckless disregard of the facts in my accusations of criminal conduct.” Nor a disgregard of the facts, either. Please, feel free to inform him; that would be a class move, not that it matters.

Communications guru said...

Sorry, Brett, I may be mistaken, but I didn’t lie.

“Michigan fined big-box retail chain Meijer Inc. more than $190,000 Tuesday for campaign law violations in its effort to build a superstore in a northern Michigan suburb.
Land described it as the maximum civil penalty that could be imposed in the case and the largest fine ever levied by her department for violations of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.”

Note the words, “largest fine ever levied by her department for violations of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.”

As for Schauer, he paid back $208,250, but the fine was only $6,000; far from a record.

Not Anonymous said...

And yet another lie from Guru. As it turns out, Mike Nofs, who is running for an open Senate seat, was involved in Duncan Aviation. He was responsible for passing a bill in 2005 regarding Duncan Aviation and therefore had knowledge and insight that was worthy to the committee.

So Nofs appearance wasn't just a political ploy for his election. He did have knowledge and therefore had something to contribute to the hearing.

Communications guru said...

I have never lied, brett.

Again, no lie, brett. Like I said before, this was a staged political ploy that is a violation of campaign finance law. The person who should have testified is the Representative that represents the district where the company is located in and drafted the bill in 2009, not Nofs. I have never seen a committee hearing where the bill sponsor did not testify.

I have no idea why the sponsor of the bill four years ago is testifying and not the current bill sponsore, other than a political, publicity stunt.