Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Their hair is perpetually on fire
Next Post: DuPage County no longer has a pristine credit rating
Posted in:
* David Cooke wants some help with his State Board of Elections case against Auditor General Frank Mautino, who has, as we’ve discussed several times so far, filed some questionable campaign finance reports. Cooke’s not getting any assistance, though…
He said he sought legal help from Republicans, with no success.
Ken Menzel, the election board’s general counsel, said the agency hasn’t had an investigator on staff for more than a decade. He said the board takes on the investigative role with “clear-cut” issues, such as late campaign finance reports, but not larger ones like Mautino’s case.
Menzel said he was surprised the Republican Party hasn’t helped Cooke because party members seemed to be “up in arms” about Mautino’s campaign spending issues.
He said the delays in the case are normal.
“At each stage, there is another round of motions. They don’t get resolved necessarily fast,” he said. “That’s due process.”
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:37 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Their hair is perpetually on fire
Next Post: DuPage County no longer has a pristine credit rating
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Not unlike the Maps Amendment and its failure to execute, Raunerites want the issue for the politics, the resolution on the matter, meh… just keep it fresh until November.
It’s the politics, and keeping the issues fresh.
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:46 pm
I think they are matching it with cash, it’s just going into election campaigns, which is where they want the money and where they want the issue.
Comment by Earnest Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:53 pm
OW certainly has one reasonable explanation. But perhaps there’s an even more apparent reason. Rauner’s money is better spent trying to win seats. After all, every penny is needed to compete in the few toss-up districts there are; let alone try and steal one (two?) of the mostly Democrat drawn districts.
Comment by Deft Wing Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:54 pm
Are the Democrats paying for Mautino’s lawyer? I thought the office of Auditor General was out of the bounds of politics.
Because… MADIGAN!
Comment by Big Muddy Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 1:55 pm
It is interesting however that Rauner calls everyone in Springfield corrupt but when given a golden chance to prove it he is nowhere to be seen. Perhaps he too has some blood on his hands in this arena??
Comment by Big Muddy Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:01 pm
Or, it’s a realization that if he survives, they are still gonna have to deal with the guy.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:03 pm
Maybe GOPies too busy fighting “cyber attackaramabamas”…or they concluded this is loser case
Comment by Annonin' Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:16 pm
Maybe they all (repub and dems) spend those funds loose and they really don’t want this to end up in there back yard also
Comment by 13TH Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:52 pm
Is it just me, or does anyone else find Attorney Menzel’s comments about “the Republican Party hasn’t helped Cooke” to be a tad inappropriate for someone in his position?
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:53 pm
AA: Yes, more than a tad inappropriate.
It prejudges the charges as primarily politically-driven. (Might be true, but that’s not a good going-in position.)
Comment by walker Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 3:07 pm
- Arthur Andersen - Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 2:53 pm:
Is it just me, or does anyone else find Attorney Menzel’s comments about “the Republican Party hasn’t helped Cooke” to be a tad inappropriate for someone in his position?
If a reporter directly asks if you’re surprised that something hasn’t happened, and everyone else in the world is surprised by that it hasn’t happened, is it even credible to deny that you share that surprise too?
Comment by titan Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 4:16 pm
Titan, give me a break. The attorney for a State regulatory body who may be involved in formulating regulatory action against a particular individual is not “everyone else” and “no comment” is an entirely reasonable response.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Tuesday, Sep 6, 16 @ 6:52 pm