Mathieson selectively shines light
Gag alert. Former Delegate and chronic negative campaigner Bobby Mathieson continues his combover campaign in filing a recount to save his government job service. But one thing on his “press release” was a laugher!
He’s doing this recount “provide citizens the opportunity to shine a bright light on the electoral process” and “he will always stand for good government, for transparency, and for serving the public interest.” Oh really?
If he was so interested in shining “a bright light on the electoral process,” he could’ve announced his correct cash on hand total throughout the campaign like every other campaign had to.
Nope, he got to show a ZERO on every report. He wasn’t interested in shining a bright light on that. He never bothered to meet the same disclosure requirements that every other candidate in Virginia had to meet, but now he’s committed to “transparency!”
Hey, Bobby! You can’t suddenly decide to be interested in “transparency.” Your aide embezzled money from you since you first won in 2007, and he was convicted of embezzlement in 2004. That was transparent enough, since you didn’t notice it for nearly two years.
Your cash on hand numbers were wrong every time you filed them.
Even worse, once the embezzlement was discovered around Labor Day, your “transparent” campaign finance reports showed ZERO cash on hand each time pending the police investigation that lasted until after Election Day.
Why did it take two months to investigate one checkbook and one aide?
And why, if you’re so interested in “transparency” didn’t you issue a press release each reporting deadline telling the public your cash on hand? You knew Villanueva’s cash on hand throughout the campaign. Why didn’t you insist on playing by the same rules?
The only transparent thing is the real motive of this recount, and it’s nothing so high and mighty as “a light on the electoral process” or “transparency.” It’s Mathieson lost the race and this is his only chance to change that into a win.
If he just said that, I’d respect him enough. But the blather in that press release was too much to take.
Category: Catch-All
Loading ...
Brian – Mathieson followed the instructions of the SBE on how to report the cash balance.
As for the embezzlement investigation, once Mathieson made the report, the State Police take over the investigation. They do all of the leg work and then turn over the evidence to the Commonwealth’s Attorney, who handles the indictment. It is obvious that you’ve never followed an embezzlement case before. I, unfortunately, have. The process is the process and it is out of the hands of the person filing the complaint to do anything.
Brian,
Not sure I exactly concur with your assessment on Mathieson’s transparency (or lack thereof), but I do wonder why he has requested this recount on the taxpayer’s dime, especially when there is a group out there called “Mathieson for Congress.”
If he has other motives, this seems to me to be an extreme waste of taxpayer dollars.
However, he does have a shot at picking up a few votes given the new mode of recounting optical scan ballots. Check out this post from the William and Mary Election Law Blog for a detailed review of the new law which went into effect last year.
Vivian, I don’t care if he was listening to Jeff McWaters. The citizens have a right to know his cash on hand during a campaign.
And I don’t have as much experience with embezzlement cases than obviously Democrats do, but if it takes two months to investigate one person was stealing money from one account, no wonder government can’t build a road in under 20 years.
Vivian, how the hell do you know that the SBE told him to report ZERO cash on hand? That makes no sense. No one has the authority to tell a candidate to break the law – and the law in this case is very clear. Knowingly filing a false campaign report is against the law – even for Democrats! There was a cash on hand balance with his bank account and that is what he should have reported. Duh!!
Well, it is an opportunity to shine light on the process – for example, the box of ballots that only turned up after nearly half an hour of looking for them in Martinsville during the Perriello-Goode recount (the numbers did check out on those ballots, for the record), but as far as overturning the election results, it’s definitely a possibility, especially when dealing with absentee ballots that were folded. The Opti-Scan machine doesn’t like those; we got a radically different result on Martinsville absentees, something like Goode +39 and Perriello +11 (in a universe of 800 ballots or so), while the other precincts had mostly been 1 or 2 votes either way. The Opti-Scan machine just did not read those ballots the first time through.
We did have a one precinct that gave Perriello +11 or so, so it’s definitely possible for one precinct to overturn the results, especially since we are “voter intent” state here in Virginia. It’s possible that the doofuses who can’t fill out their ballots right will decide the election (for example, circling the candidate’s name, putting a check mark in the oval instead of filling it in, crossing out the other guy’s name, circling the little black tick marks on the sides of the ballot, I could go on…)
The electronic voting machines is simply a recheck of the results, so there’s no chance of those numbers changing, provided they were read correctly during the canvass. Overall, it’s definitely a possibility, but Villanueva shouldn’t be losing sleep.