Jump to content
Jonathan Lee's campaign finance report for 2013 through April 30
Immediate takeaways:- Hate pays. Lee spent nearly as much advertising on Jackson Jambalaya ($800) as he did on the Clarion Ledger ($965)—the same amount he spent on the Northside Sun ($800).- This is where the Republican support really becomes visible: another $2,500 from Leland Speed, to go with the $1,000 he already gave Jackson 20/20. And, strangely enough, $1,000 from Joel Bomgar(!).- There are still some GOP names that are conspicuously absent from this donor list, and they're folks who haven't visibly backed another candidate, so we should be on guard for another PAC next month if Lee makes the runoff.
There are multiple PACs happening, Tom, and they don't have to report any activity since April 27 until May 14, we're told. THAT sucks for citizen transparency. But we'll be on it like my cats on tuna when May 14 arrives, no matter who wins next week. There's political legacy stuff here to record.
Leland Speed also gave Frank Bluntson $2,000. Just wow. I'd guess the hope is that Bluntson will draw older votes from Johnson, which I'm sure he will.
Also, it was interesting that they couldn't find an address for JJ -- do they write checks out to blog name, or to his current name, or his birth name? And which address would they list? Or maybe they leave a paperbag full of cash on Fortification and run.
Ah, the curiosita. ;-)
Since Jackson Jambalaya is purely an internet enterprise (unlike the brick and mortar entities listed) it would be inappropriate to identify his birth name or nom de plume in this manner. Perhaps the URL would suffice.
And since his campaign gave the JFP $1900, does Mr. Lee hate JFP more than Jackson Jambalaya or vice versa? Or is he paying you more to hate him? Mr. Head's comment was confusing. Hate pays how?
Inappropriate? The whole point of campaign reporting is to explain exactly who gives and gets the money. Do your homework, Darryl. When you play in politics, it's all about transparency.
His campaign didn't give us money; it bought advertising in an actual media outlet, as did most of the major campaigns. We have an address, we have actual names we were born with, and we don't talk about how we wish a "b*tch's" breast implants will explode because we disagree with her on something.
I have a feeling you and some others would be wigging out if any of the candidates bought ads on a site expressing, say, blatant anti-white sentiments, no? Women, and people who care about us, need to start speaking up about these very public efforts to reduce us to pieces of meat, not to mention the (often) men who go along with it for fun or political gain. I applaud Tom for doing so. No wonder that beautiful girlfriend of his loves him so much. He's a man willing to stand up for women. Bless you, Tom, from me and all the other women in Jackson who have similar concerns.
Gave you money, bought advertising, whatever. Splitting hairs calling one an "actual" media outlet. At least call JJ a virtual media outlet. Smile, geez.
Speaking only for myself, you would be wrong to feel that I would "be wigging out" if some entity paid for advertising espousing blatant anti-white or blatant anti-black/man/woman/gay/straight/pet/fish (you get the point) sentiments. Hell, I wish candidates would truly speak their mind about certain issues. Rather the enemy that I can see than the one who hides behind their open palms.
Darryl, there are actually journalistic ethics and best practices. Journalists don't "report" under assumed names. For freakin' obvious reasons. Of course, if they want to wish someone's breast implants explode, then maybe a fake name makes sense. But call it what it is: trash. The National Enquirer mixes in something accurate on occasion, but it doesn't make it journalism.
Never have I said that Jackson Jambalaya is journalism. It is, however, an outlet through which information is disseminated, therefore qualifying as a media outlet. He may not have gone to journalism school, doesn't matter to me. He provides information that people are free to evaluate and decide for themselves whether or not it is relevant. Since I am unfamiliar with your hatred of him and his, I cannot comment on the rest of your characterization.
Desktop version |