BCC Candidates for District 1
- Thread starter Jdarg
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Good question and while Scott has done a creditable job in many areas, I would like to see all commissioners have apponents. I am sure everyone on SoWal is aware that we can vote for all district candidates in Walton County.I have been waiting to see if someone else is noticing the fact that there are plenty of candidates for District 5, but is anyone running against Scott Brannon in District 1?
I love that someone CONVICTED of election fraud is running unopposed.
Funny, I do not remember a trial on this issue.
Speaking of convicted .. today's Daily News has a story on Charlie Burke with this headline: "Suspended Walton mosquito control commissioner convicted of voter fraud" .. what a shame.
Brannon agreed to accept the fines imposed by the Florida Elections Commission and the WAV group also agreed to pay fines in a consent agreement to settle charges of compaign finance law violations.
Brannon agreed to accept the fines imposed by the Florida Elections Commission and the WAV group also agreed to pay fines in a consent agreement to settle charges of compaign finance law violations.
Thanks Aggie and wrobert, you beat me to it.
Not at all endorsing any activity that is deemed to fall outside our election laws, but campaign violations are not criminal, so saying "convicted" is inaccurate.
Also, let's be clear, agreeing to pay a fine for an alleged violation is not at all uncommon. I know a lot of people who aren't thrilled with speeding tickets, but don't want to spend the time or money to contest the issue, and opt for the cheaper "fine". And, I'm just guessing here, but I suspect a lawyer for an election complaint costs more than one who does traffic tickets. It may have been a simple financial decision to pay the fines and not pay the lawyers.
Now Charlie Burke, he was "convicted".
As always, lets keep these discussions about facts. It gives us in SoWal more credibility.
Not at all endorsing any activity that is deemed to fall outside our election laws, but campaign violations are not criminal, so saying "convicted" is inaccurate.
Also, let's be clear, agreeing to pay a fine for an alleged violation is not at all uncommon. I know a lot of people who aren't thrilled with speeding tickets, but don't want to spend the time or money to contest the issue, and opt for the cheaper "fine". And, I'm just guessing here, but I suspect a lawyer for an election complaint costs more than one who does traffic tickets. It may have been a simple financial decision to pay the fines and not pay the lawyers.
Now Charlie Burke, he was "convicted".
As always, lets keep these discussions about facts. It gives us in SoWal more credibility.
Sorry, I will rephrase, as I obviously used a poor choice of words:
I love that someone with a well-documented history of campaign violations and major financial backing from a group who also has a history of campaign violations and ugly tactics is running unopposed!
What was it, 30+ violations that they were fined for?
I love that someone with a well-documented history of campaign violations and major financial backing from a group who also has a history of campaign violations and ugly tactics is running unopposed!
What was it, 30+ violations that they were fined for?
Last edited:
Thanks for rephrasing.
If I recall the PAC involved was fined on approximately 30 counts. Comm. Brannon was fined on 2 counts.
I assume thats the well-documented history you refer to. Either way, I agree with the point about the PAC.
These groups have a very negative effect on all campaigns, and this would appear to be the first local race we saw that in.
Back to the original post... is it truly necessary that every incumbent have multiple opponents? More signs, more dollars spent on elections, and less time to focus on actual issues getting resolved.
I'm all for the democratic process, but the idea of opposition, specifically multiple opponents, as a requirement strikes me as being a bit much.
If I recall the PAC involved was fined on approximately 30 counts. Comm. Brannon was fined on 2 counts.
I assume thats the well-documented history you refer to. Either way, I agree with the point about the PAC.
These groups have a very negative effect on all campaigns, and this would appear to be the first local race we saw that in.
Back to the original post... is it truly necessary that every incumbent have multiple opponents? More signs, more dollars spent on elections, and less time to focus on actual issues getting resolved.
I'm all for the democratic process, but the idea of opposition, specifically multiple opponents, as a requirement strikes me as being a bit much.
I am not advocating multiple opponents, just wish someone was running against Brannon.
I do not approve of his actions while campaigning or in office and want someone with the community's best interests in mind elected.
I do not approve of his actions while campaigning or in office and want someone with the community's best interests in mind elected.