Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

SBE Asseses Fines

By Greg L | 16 February 2007 | Virginia Politics | 9 Comments

Back In July of 2006 BVBL contributor RHarrison provided us with a rather entertaining post about the State Board of Elections losing Steve Chapman’s campaign finance report that was due on July 17th, 2006. I’ve since learned that it in fact wasn’t an oversight on the part of the SBE, but that Mr. Chapman indeed filed his campaign finance report late and has been assessed a fine by the State Board of Elections as a result. In addition, Chapman has failed to file his disclosure which was due on January 16th, 2007 and has been fined for that as well. If Mr. Chapman fails to address this, the matter will be turned over to the Commonwealth Attorney’s office of Paul Ebert which could conceivably mean that Republican Prince William County Board of Supervisor for the Brentsville District, Wally Covington would be pursuing collection actions against Mr. Chapman if the assessed fines are not paid. Small world.Unfortunately Mr. Chapman isn’t the only candidate for office who has been assessed a fine by the State Board of Elections. There’s actualy a long list of mostly political has-beens and Democratic incumbents, with a couple of surprises thrown in to keep it interesting. The following campaigns have been assesed fines for failure to file, or to file in a timely fashion their campaign finance reports in 2006, according to the State Board of Elections:

This is quite a collection. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to be listed in this group, which doesn’t include local candidates which I’ll be diving into in the near future.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

9 Comments

  1. el Zorro said on 16 Feb 2007 at 10:45 pm:
    Flag comment

    MUCHACHOS,
    If Chapman bought a hut in Chiapas with out plumbing(who has plumbing in Chiapas) could he run in the Primary against Comandante ZERO? A nice place for Chapman to move, No? Z… hates Comandante ZERO and would chip in for Chapman’s oneway ticket. Who knows, Chapman might win if he has enough cartuchos, No?

    Beware When The Moon Shines Bright!!!

    Z

  2. Had to Say said on 17 Feb 2007 at 1:19 am:
    Flag comment

    No big suprise with Stevie.

  3. Donny Ferguson said on 17 Feb 2007 at 10:51 am:
    Flag comment

    I was NOT fined. A few days after receiving a letter and two e-mails from the Marian Mines affirming they received my reports, I got a letter from Tina Edmonds saying they did not.

    I contacted Tina, she spoke to Marian and they retracted their letter. There was a mix-up on the committee ID numbers.

    — Donny Ferguson.

  4. charles said on 18 Feb 2007 at 10:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Shuemaker for Delegate, 50th HOD District postal worker who lost to Harry Parrish in 2005 in violation of the Hatch Act “.

    You mean the Hatch Act required that he win? :-)

  5. Greg L said on 18 Feb 2007 at 11:38 pm:
    Flag comment

    No, that under the Hatch Act it was unlawful for him to run for elected office while still employed by the US Postal Service. Had he posed a serious challenge I’m sure they question would have been raised, but my understanding is that Harry felt a complaint was unnecessary and would have been too big of a sledgehammer to employ.

    But thanks for pointing out my inadvertent torture of the english language there.

  6. charles said on 19 Feb 2007 at 12:32 am:
    Flag comment

    I knew that, I just thought it was funny…..

    (I even sent the guy an e-mail noting the danger he put himself in, he never responded).

  7. Greg L said on 19 Feb 2007 at 12:41 am:
    Flag comment

    Yeah, I gotta admit you’re right. The idea that postal boy would have been legally required to prevail is a pretty amusing concept.

  8. Con Vallian said on 19 Feb 2007 at 11:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Acutally, Donald Shuemaker was not subject to the Hatch Act because he was not a Federal employee of the Postal Service.

    At the time he ran, he was a substitute delivery man with no benefits.

    Donald did check with the Postal Office Legal Department to make sure this would not be a conflict.

    So, Parrish had no sledgehammer to wield which is why it was never done. Duh!

    Of course, Greg L and others could have contacted Shuemaker to find out these facts, but I understand that it more fun to pass out misinformation then verify statements on this blog.

    There are liars and then, as we have seen earlier, there are damn liars.

  9. No, I’m Not That Jim Mitchell said on 20 Feb 2007 at 10:24 am:
    Flag comment

    […] those of you landing here from bvbl.net, I just want to let you know I am not the Jim Mitchell the author seems to think I […]

Comments are closed.


Views: 3418