Posted by In Dothan this morning, 2nd Congressional District candidates attended the last of three debates/forums sponsored by AARP, the National Federation of Independent Business, Troy University, and WSFA-TV. The first one was televised, and State Sen. Harri Anne Smith garnered attention for missing the only televised debate in the AL-02 race. The last two forums featured questions from the audience.
The word this morning is that as soon as questions from the audience started, Sen. Smith got up and left, saying she had a prior commitment. The legislative session starts up again today, but the Senate begins an hour later than the House. She left Representatives David Grimes and Jay Love sitting there answering questions, leading Grimes to ask, “Why does it take longer for a Senator to get to Montgomery than a House Member?”
Sometimes perception and reality are the same, and sometimes they are not, but the perception that Smith may have to address is that she is ducking public appearances particularly that involve public interaction.
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
That is not an FEC violation JRay. And yes, it is a far cry from what the smith campaign did – which was a violation.
JohnJohn – Guess I misread 2 USC 441b.(b)(2).
Again, the problem would have been if he did NOT reimburse.
You did mis read Jray. Woods Comm is a company he owns. no one else. his campaign reimbursed the company and it was all reported. it is all proper. if you want to compare it to what smith did, she used an account that was not her own business (her own money) to spend on her congressional reace. she was using funds from contributors for her state senate race, to fund her run for another office…congress. what woods did is totally different and he reimbursed and reported it properly. another distinction from what smith did is that she only reimbursed and reported the activity after a violation was called to her attention.
Since she bolted early, I don’t have much from Harrie Ann Smith’s performance – but here’s what I did write, the quotes are my actual notes on my observations.
Opening Statements
“Looks nervous and unsure, rambles – Needs to buy cue cards.”
Question 1 – Healthcare
“Babbles but says nothing. Typical Politician”
Question 2 – Taxes for War, Healthcare
“Quote: I Hate Taxes – Duh. Anything else? No.”
Question 3 – Brazilian Ethanol Program – Good/Bad?
“Explore Alternatives, Take Iraq’s Oil because they owe us.”
Then she left.
Now I admit, this was my first time seeing any of the candidates, but Harrie Ann Smith was one of the worst. She displayed neither leadership nor a grasp on basic logic. The only idea she put forth was to lower gas prices by taking Iraq’s oil… I’m sure the Iraqi’s will love that one – maybe when we start stealing the only thing of value in their whole country they’ll start throwing flowers at us – Right Harrie Ann?
Keep this woman out of Washington, she’s clueless.
I see. i did not know that Woods was the sole stockholder in Woods Comm Corp. I should have checked.
You are correct that Senator Smith wants to take Iraq’s oil for our own. Talk about a nut. It sounds fine to Bubba on the street but for someone actually running for Congress to say that shows she has no true grasp of how things actually work. Such a move or even mention of it makes all those folks that say this was an imperialist war for oil on the part of America actually look like they know what they are talking about it. She would be laughed out of Congress. If she wanted to talk about Iraq paying more of their fair share for reconstruction and using their oil revenues to build up infrastructire, etc then that makes sense. But she wants to take their oil and send it over here. whacked out….
I know this may be a no-no on political parlor, but guys, just give me a little liberty. This is the best forum by far. However, if any of you want to see some clueless people, go to wiregrasslive.com. There are some current debates about HA Smith’s bill and the people down there have no idea how clueless she is. I am having fun with them now and could use some help.
Hello,,,If Smith thinks she can run, hide and duck out on the issues, then she is definitely in for a rude awakening folks! 02 voters see right through that and demand representation by someone who is willing to lead, take a stand and fight for positive change. Someone who will stay the course! It appears this excludes her!
That does exclude her. She runs from issues and questions…she has proven that. And in terms of taking a stand…we just saw first hand that she is not able to do that. When you have no core convictions on policy, you don’t know what to do except introduce bills then pull them. We don’t need that weakness as our member of congress
It would appear that Love’s consultants sure want both Woods and Smith out of the race any way possible. That just confirms to me the numbers being rumored about Montgomery that show them ahead of Love are legit. Love is third and fading and not taking it well. . . .
Anyone that is looking at polls will not find Jay Love third. HA Smith maybe, but not Love. I don’t plan on voting for either one of them, but I am being realistic about what the numbers say.
Love is not as worried about Smith as he is the two Davids now…
I’m not a Love or Woods supporter but am most definitely not a Smith supporter. Haven’t seen anything she has to offer the district.
She has zero to offer the district except someone that can’t take a stand and will run from tough issues. I guess that is what being in the state legislature will do for you?
Smith is still first. And anyone who has seen actual numbers knows that. Love and Woods are dead even with Woods moving and Love stagnant.
Schmidtke and Grimes are out unless Grimes has secret money coming.
Reality Bites, you and I both know you are full of it now. Numbers are coming out.
Numbers are coming out? By who? Is there an ind. source that is doing a poll? If so, I haven’t seen it – so please fill us all in “Real numbers.” I don’t doubt Grimes and Schmidtke are out of it. Martin also. Woods, Love and Smith are the top three but I doubt Smith is polling first in any un biased district wide poll.
Hey Big Al, Please read this extract and explain how Woods’ use of corporate funds is exempt from FEC rules. Please remember, that Woods Communication Corp. is a separate and distinct entity. Woods, as an officer of the Corp is also prohibited from authorizing such use of Corp.funds.
§ 441b. Contributions or expenditures by national banks, corporations, or labor organizations
It is unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any law of Congress, to make a contribution or expenditure in connection with any election to any political office….or for any candidate, political committee, or other person knowingly to accept or receive any contribution prohibited by this section, or any officer or any director of any corporation or any national bank or any officer of any labor organization to consent to any contribution or expenditure by the corporation, national bank, or labor organization, as the case may be, prohibited by this section.
For purposes of this section and section 79l(h) of title 15,1 the term “contribution or expenditure” includes a contribution or expenditure, as those terms are defined in section 301 (2 u.s.c. § 431), and also includes any direct or indirect payment, distribution, loan, advance, deposit, or gift of money, or any services, or anything of value …. to any candidate, campaign committee, or political party or organization, in connection with any election to any of the offices referred to in this section or for any applicable electioneering communication….
As far as poll numbers, they are real and they are out there. The extreme reaction by Love supporters to Woods recently shows that the numbers are out there. Love is reacting more to Woods because they now know how big a threat he actually is.
If the election were today Woods and smith make the runoff.
Where have you seen Love supprters react to Woods? So if the numbers are out there…do tell.
Jray, it makes a difference in that Woods owns his company 100%. It is all his own money. He also reported it and showed the reimbursement. Wake up!
Re: 120. The primary is still 4 weeks away. I don’t think Smith can “hang-on” for 4 more weeks. She is keeping a very low profile, while Love and Woods are spending $$$ on TV ads. I saw a new Woods TV spot this morning on WSFA, and noticed that Love has tacked a smaller sign to many of his large 4X8’s. It reads “Christian Conservative Values”. We will most likely see a Love/Woods run-off.
Has anyone seen a poll on how this race is shaping up? where is the best / most reliable source to see polling results?
Big Al, It appears that Woods allowed a CORPORATION to advance or loan a political committee funds in the form of postage, supplies, and payroll. Woods does not OWN the company, he is just the principal stockholder and President. I agree that there is a fine line between ownership and stockholdership (sp), but ultimately, a corporation cannot contribute to a political committee, regardless of whether or not it is reimbursed. Just show me the FEC paragraph that supports your position.
Woods is not in violation JRay. If you are so sure of yourself, file an FEC complaint or call them and inquire if you are correct. You are not.
Jboner, I’ll call tommorrow, if I’m wrong, I prefer my crow grilled with a side of onion rings.
Jboner – per FEC (800-424-9530, menu item 6) Use of corporate funds to support a candidate (when those funds are reimbursed by the candidates committee) is frowned upon by the FEC, but is acceptable provided all non-payroll items are reimbursed within a commercially reasonable time frame and all payroll expenses are paid for in advance. The FEC representative I spoke with seemed most interested in whether the letterhead identified on Woods’ FEC3 contained any reference to the corporation or if it was committee letterhead paid for by the corporation and subsequently reimbursed by the committee. Humbly yours, JRay