See this discussion under Smells Funny.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by E.B.
Guess what we received in the mail yesterday? William Daniel’s Legislative Update. A slick four color tri-fold. Three photos of William Daniel. 12,000 pieces mailed. Printing and postage paid by taxpayers. Coincidental that it happens right before qualifying?

He probably has the right to do it but is it right? I don’t know. As my man Buggs would say, it smells funny.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong, EB. Daniel has sent one of those out into his district every year he has been in office. He pays for it out of his campaign funds, not with taxpayer money. Get your business straight before you post such inaccuracies.

[QUOTE=EB1]See this discussion under Smells Funny.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by E.B.
Guess what we received in the mail yesterday? William Daniel’s Legislative Update. A slick four color tri-fold. Three photos of William Daniel. 12,000 pieces mailed. Printing and postage paid by taxpayers. Coincidental that it happens right before qualifying?

He probably has the right to do it but is it right? I don’t know. As my man Buggs would say, it smells funny.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wrong, EB. Daniel has sent one of those out into his district every year he has been in office. He pays for it out of his campaign funds, not with taxpayer money. Get your business straight before you post such inaccuracies.

Mr. Yuma,

Have you seen the piece? If not you might want to go pick one up. You seem to have some inside know on Mr. Daniel.

You say he has sent one of these out into the district every year he has been in office and that he pays for it out of his campaign funds, not with taxpayer money. Then you proceed to tell me to get my business straight before I post such inaccuracies.

On review of my original post I don’t see a single inaccuracy or even an accusation. It is your over reaction that caused me to look at the piece once again.

If you are correct then why no campaign finance disclosure statement on the piece? Not having that is a violation of the campaign finance regulations, as perhaps would be the use of photos provided for by and paid for by public agencies.

The mailout gives the impression it was printed at taxpayer expense. A disclaimer on it states that “This material was printed in accordance with the Standards for Printing by the state agencies established pursuant to R.S. 43:31.”

So John, what does that mean to you?

This would beg the question that if every year prior to this election year Mr. Daniel has paid for it out of his campaign funds, not with taxpayer money then why, why the change this year if there is a change?

What happened here? Maybe nothing. Maybe he broke a campaign finance rule. Maybe he just used poor judgement and for the first time decided taxpayers, not his campaign, would fund this. To me the latter would be a more detracting thing than the former.

[QUOTE=Unregistered]Mr. Yuma,

Have you seen the piece? If not you might want to go pick one up. You seem to have some inside know on Mr. Daniel.

You say he has sent one of these out into the district every year he has been in office and that he pays for it out of his campaign funds, not with taxpayer money. Then you proceed to tell me to get my business straight before I post such inaccuracies.

On review of my original post I don’t see a single inaccuracy or even an accusation. It is your over reaction that caused me to look at the piece once again.

If you are correct then why no campaign finance disclosure statement on the piece? Not having that is a violation of the campaign finance regulations, as perhaps would be the use of photos provided for by and paid for by public agencies.

The mailout gives the impression it was printed at taxpayer expense. A disclaimer on it states that “This material was printed in accordance with the Standards for Printing by the state agencies established pursuant to R.S. 43:31.”

So John, what does that mean to you?

This would beg the question that if every year prior to this election year Mr. Daniel has paid for it out of his campaign funds, not with taxpayer money then why, why the change this year if there is a change?

What happened here? Maybe nothing. Maybe he broke a campaign finance rule. Maybe he just used poor judgement and for the first time decided taxpayers, not his campaign, would fund this. To me the latter would be a more detracting thing than the former.

Ya got me, partner. I had heard way back from someone in his camp that he pays for the mailers he sends out every year. I don’t know who paid for this one, nor have I even seen it. I pay pretty close attention to how our local legislators do, and I have always thought Daniel was one of the most decent people down there. I can’t imagine him using taxpayer money for a political piece. If it is purely a report, I can see some justification for the state funding it. But if it has his picture on it, I think that is somewhat more of a campaign device.

You might be on to something, here, Mr. Unregistered. Any of you campaign consultants know about this stuff?

Mea culpa for the over reaction and gracias for the civilized response. Peace.

[QUOTE=John Yuma]Ya got me, partner. I had heard way back from someone in his camp that he pays for the mailers he sends out every year. I don’t know who paid for this one, nor have I even seen it. I pay pretty close attention to how our local legislators do, and I have always thought Daniel was one of the most decent people down there. I can’t imagine him using taxpayer money for a political piece. If it is purely a report, I can see some justification for the state funding it. But if it has his picture on it, I think that is somewhat more of a campaign device.

You might be on to something, here, Mr. Unregistered. Any of you campaign consultants know about this stuff?

Mea culpa for the over reaction and gracias for the civilized response. Peace.

Nah, I don’t got you, partner, nor would I want to question his being decent or not. Really. I don’t like nasty stuff on here. I am not trying to get you or Mr. Daniel.

I found it interesting that so close to an election he mails out the piece. That he might have paid for these in the past with campaign funds but might have decided this time to do it with taxpayer money would be telling. Either way, campaign funded with no disclosure, or taxpayer funded during a campaign is telling.

Thanks for you kind response and peace to you too.

[QUOTE=Unregistered]Nah, I don’t got you, partner, nor would I want to question his being decent or not. Really. I don’t like nasty stuff on here. I am not trying to get you or Mr. Daniel.

I found it interesting that so close to an election he mails out the piece. That he might have paid for these in the past with campaign funds but might have decided this time to do it with taxpayer money would be telling. Either way, campaign funded with no disclosure, or taxpayer funded during a campaign is telling.

Thanks for you kind response and peace to you too.

So what do you guys think is the truth? Which “mistake” did William Daniel make?

The Morning Advocate reports Daniels is going to keep Raiford on in some capcity at DPW. I’m disapointed because Raiford represents the old guard in Baton Rouge. Kip is looking better and better all the time.

[QUOTE=Unregistered]The Morning Advocate reports Daniels is going to keep Raiford on in some capcity at DPW. I’m disapointed because Raiford represents the old guard in Baton Rouge. Kip is looking better and better all the time.

Fred is a great guy. He’s dedicated his life to that job. The problem isn’t Fred. The people of EBR can’t make up their minds. They want traffic to flow smoothly but through other peoples neighborhoods and adjoining streets. They want four lanes but not near them.

They want improved services but get upset about the cost. They want more of this and that but have voted down tax increases for what something like fifty years.

Fred doesn’t work for the mayor or the council. He has to take much of his marching orders from a commission that is made up of people no one can direct.

Go figure. Don’t blame Fred.

[QUOTE=Unregistered]So what do you guys think is the truth? Which “mistake” did William Daniel make?

It shouldn’t be hard to determine. An honest man like William Daniels should be willing to tell us the truth. For one, I don’t see the point of putting a legal disclaimer that only is required when our taxpayer dollars are used on the mailing, if it was paid for with private funds.

Mr. Daniels should speak up. Otherwise one might conclude that there is some hypocrisy going on here whether it is legal or not.

[QUOTE=Wondering]It shouldn’t be hard to determine. An honest man like William Daniels should be willing to tell us the truth. For one, I don’t see the point of putting a legal disclaimer that only is required when our taxpayer dollars are used on the mailing, if it was paid for with private funds.

Mr. Daniels should speak up. Otherwise one might conclude that there is some hypocrisy going on here whether it is legal or not.

A disclaimer is required when campaign funds are used. It looks like a disclaimer is on the mailout. He used taxpayer money to do his mailing one week from qualifying. No conflict there right? One of the posts above said Daniel has never used taxpayer funds in the past. So what’s up?

[QUOTE=Unregistered]A disclaimer is required when campaign funds are used. It looks like a disclaimer is on the mailout. He used taxpayer money to do his mailing one week from qualifying. No conflict there right? One of the posts above said Daniel has never used taxpayer funds in the past. So what’s up?

I’m not certain that a disclaimer is required anytime that campaign funds are used. Such campaign disclosures are only required when the matter is “campaign material”. Simply putting his picture on the flier doesn’t make it campaign material under the law.

It seems to me the best way to settle this is for one of William’s friends who is defending him to get William to respond to the allegations.

[QUOTE=Answerman]I’m not certain that a disclaimer is required anytime that campaign funds are used. Such campaign disclosures are only required when the matter is “campaign material”. Simply putting his picture on the flier doesn’t make it campaign material under the law.

It seems to me the best way to settle this is for one of William’s friends who is defending him to get William to respond to the allegations.

William Daniel will probably not even qualify so who cares.

[QUOTE=Unregistered]William Daniel will probably not even qualify so who cares.

He should still have to answer the question.

does bobby have to put a disclaimer on the free air time on cable channel 21? the ethics commission should take a long hard look at that! PUSH FORWARD it will all work out on election day.

[QUOTE=Unregistered]does bobby have to put a disclaimer on the free air time on cable channel 21? the ethics commission should take a long hard look at that! PUSH FORWARD it will all work out on election day.

I watched 21 last night and saw a forum of all candidates.

Attacking rather than answering the question must be a political techinque but the questions surrounding the Daniel mailout remain.

[QUOTE=Unregistered]I watched 21 last night and saw a forum of all candidates.

Attacking rather than answering the question must be a political techinque but the questions surrounding the Daniel mailout remain.

William Daniel’s answer to the question is what it is to every question he is asked. duhhhhhh I’ll refuse to take a paycheck until we find an answer that gets me the most votes. Kip is so much smarter.

[QUOTE=Unregistered]William Daniel’s answer to the question is what it is to every question he is asked. duhhhhhh I’ll refuse to take a paycheck until we find an answer that gets me the most votes. Kip is so much smarter.

You are exactly right. Kip is so much smarter than both Daniel and Simpson put together. But, like Jindal, intelligence does not determine the winner… we don’t go too far past skin color.