Elisa Silverman found guilty of violating campaign finance rules with Ward 3 poll

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

It doesn’t matter if the corrupt act worked or not. The point is that it was a corrupt act.

Interesting use of the c-word, but let's discuss what actually happened. Elissa ran a poll - funded by Fair Elections money - to decide who to endorse. Based on the results of that poll, she chose to endorse Frumin. Bergmann, Cohen, and Duncan chose to drop out not long after, partly as a result of that endorsement. Should she have used Fair Elections money to run the poll? Probably not, since it didn't have a lot to do with her campaign. But it's hardly qualifies as the kind of embezzlement that would warrant dropping the c-word.

Probably not? Not a lot to do with her campaign? It's a pretty obvious illegal act that had absolutely nothing to do with her campaign. While nowhere near the worst thing a DC pol has ever done there is no doubt that it was brazen, wrong, and a clearcut misuse of public funds. It is definitely corruption. Not Jack Evans level but definitely corruption.

Why? There are all sorts of polls, city wide and within wards. I suppose had she polled her own race and the Ward 3 race, none of this would have been an issue, right?

She did poll city-wide races as well as the Ward 3 primary. The poll asked multiple questions.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

It doesn’t matter if the corrupt act worked or not. The point is that it was a corrupt act.

Interesting use of the c-word, but let's discuss what actually happened. Elissa ran a poll - funded by Fair Elections money - to decide who to endorse. Based on the results of that poll, she chose to endorse Frumin. Bergmann, Cohen, and Duncan chose to drop out not long after, partly as a result of that endorsement. Should she have used Fair Elections money to run the poll? Probably not, since it didn't have a lot to do with her campaign. But it's hardly qualifies as the kind of embezzlement that would warrant dropping the c-word.

Probably not? Not a lot to do with her campaign? It's a pretty obvious illegal act that had absolutely nothing to do with her campaign. While nowhere near the worst thing a DC pol has ever done there is no doubt that it was brazen, wrong, and a clearcut misuse of public funds. It is definitely corruption. Not Jack Evans level but definitely corruption.

Why? There are all sorts of polls, city wide and within wards. I suppose had she polled her own race and the Ward 3 race, none of this would have been an issue, right?

She did poll city-wide races as well as the Ward 3 primary. The poll asked multiple questions.

if the poll asked about her own race, then the OCF decision is totally bunk

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

It doesn’t matter if the corrupt act worked or not. The point is that it was a corrupt act.

Interesting use of the c-word, but let's discuss what actually happened. Elissa ran a poll - funded by Fair Elections money - to decide who to endorse. Based on the results of that poll, she chose to endorse Frumin. Bergmann, Cohen, and Duncan chose to drop out not long after, partly as a result of that endorsement. Should she have used Fair Elections money to run the poll? Probably not, since it didn't have a lot to do with her campaign. But it's hardly qualifies as the kind of embezzlement that would warrant dropping the c-word.

Probably not? Not a lot to do with her campaign? It's a pretty obvious illegal act that had absolutely nothing to do with her campaign. While nowhere near the worst thing a DC pol has ever done there is no doubt that it was brazen, wrong, and a clearcut misuse of public funds. It is definitely corruption. Not Jack Evans level but definitely corruption.

Why? There are all sorts of polls, city wide and within wards. I suppose had she polled her own race and the Ward 3 race, none of this would have been an issue, right?

She did poll city-wide races as well as the Ward 3 primary. The poll asked multiple questions.

if the poll asked about her own race, then the OCF decision is totally bunk

Silverman was not running in the primary and therefore did not have a race of her own to poll. She polled the following races: Mayor of D.C., Ward 3 Democratic Primary, Council at Large, Council Chair, and D.C. Attorney General. In previous elections, she had performed well in Ward 3, even beating the Democratic Party candidate in that ward. So, she wanted to understand Ward 3 voter preferences regarding the other races to see if those preferences aligned with her own positions.

[Anonymous]

OCF trying hard to get McDuffie elected.

They are sandbagging Silverman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

It doesn’t matter if the corrupt act worked or not. The point is that it was a corrupt act.

Interesting use of the c-word, but let's discuss what actually happened. Elissa ran a poll - funded by Fair Elections money - to decide who to endorse. Based on the results of that poll, she chose to endorse Frumin. Bergmann, Cohen, and Duncan chose to drop out not long after, partly as a result of that endorsement. Should she have used Fair Elections money to run the poll? Probably not, since it didn't have a lot to do with her campaign. But it's hardly qualifies as the kind of embezzlement that would warrant dropping the c-word.

Probably not? Not a lot to do with her campaign? It's a pretty obvious illegal act that had absolutely nothing to do with her campaign. While nowhere near the worst thing a DC pol has ever done there is no doubt that it was brazen, wrong, and a clearcut misuse of public funds. It is definitely corruption. Not Jack Evans level but definitely corruption.

Why? There are all sorts of polls, city wide and within wards. I suppose had she polled her own race and the Ward 3 race, none of this would have been an issue, right?

Correct. Had she polled her own race or used her own funds to poll thid race then it wouldn't be a problem. This shouldn't be controversial and she should have known better. Public funds are given to candidates to use for their own races. They're not a slush fund. They come with strings attached and they're bot supposed to be used for increasing someone's political influence. It's not a huge deal but she didn't even try to fit it within the rules. She needs to accept the slap on the wrist and move on

[Anonymous]

Voters won’t move on - between Silverman’s ethics problems and her snarky, dismissive treatment of her constituents. Definitely NOT voting for Elissa Silverman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Both Bergman and Duncan's campaigns were on fumes. Neither of them had any traction in the race. The idea that Silverman had to work to get them out is BS. They both knew they were not viable.

And yet they didn’t drop out until after they got a call from Silverman who told them her polling, that they could not afford, says that they cannot win.

They (at least Duncan) have claimed that Silverman's intervention was not decisive. You can choose to believe them or not. But neither of them should have stayed in as long as they did. Their egos came very close to getting Goulet elected.

The filings from April and May showed that neither of these campaigns were gaining any traction. They both (and others) should have dropped out before that, but they didn't. Given how strongly Frumin polled in a few key areas, this action clearly didn't have any impact on the final results.

It doesn’t matter if the corrupt act worked or not. The point is that it was a corrupt act.

Interesting use of the c-word, but let's discuss what actually happened. Elissa ran a poll - funded by Fair Elections money - to decide who to endorse. Based on the results of that poll, she chose to endorse Frumin. Bergmann, Cohen, and Duncan chose to drop out not long after, partly as a result of that endorsement. Should she have used Fair Elections money to run the poll? Probably not, since it didn't have a lot to do with her campaign. But it's hardly qualifies as the kind of embezzlement that would warrant dropping the c-word.

Probably not? Not a lot to do with her campaign? It's a pretty obvious illegal act that had absolutely nothing to do with her campaign. While nowhere near the worst thing a DC pol has ever done there is no doubt that it was brazen, wrong, and a clearcut misuse of public funds. It is definitely corruption. Not Jack Evans level but definitely corruption.

Why? There are all sorts of polls, city wide and within wards. I suppose had she polled her own race and the Ward 3 race, none of this would have been an issue, right?

Correct. Had she polled her own race or used her own funds to poll thid race then it wouldn't be a problem. This shouldn't be controversial and she should have known better. Public funds are given to candidates to use for their own races. They're not a slush fund. They come with strings attached and they're bot supposed to be used for increasing someone's political influence. It's not a huge deal but she didn't even try to fit it within the rules. She needs to accept the slap on the wrist and move on

According to Jeff, she did poll her own race and included questions about the Ward 3 candidates. As such, this should have been a non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Voters won’t move on - between Silverman’s ethics problems and her snarky, dismissive treatment of her constituents. Definitely NOT voting for Elissa Silverman.

Feel the exact same way. Wanted to like her during her first race but made the mistake of following her on Twitter and seeing her true self.

[Anonymous]

In a field this crowded, she will still hold her seat, the real question is Bonds versus McDuffie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a field this crowded, she will still hold her seat, the real question is Bonds versus McDuffie.

The combination of being first on the ballot, having name recognition, and voters getting two votes is probably worth 10-20% if not more. Add to that those who are grateful for paid family leave and those who see green team race-baiting for what it is and she stands a good chance of being elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Voters won’t move on - between Silverman’s ethics problems and her snarky, dismissive treatment of her constituents. Definitely NOT voting for Elissa Silverman.

Can you give an example of how she was snarky and dismissive of her constituents? Are you referring to your own personal experience, or something else?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a field this crowded, she will still hold her seat, the real question is Bonds versus McDuffie.

That is not the question at all. Bonds will retain her seat simply because she has a "D" next to her name on the ballot. It's literally that simple for many, many DC voters. Just accept it and move on.

Ask yourself this: Why is McDuffie campaigning against Silverman but not Bonds? He's literally not mentioning Bonds, because doing so would be pointless. He sees Silverman as the more vulnerable incumbent because of the way the at-large election is conducted, and because he figures a large segment of the DC electorate will choose a POC over a privileged white woman. Might be cynical, but that's DC politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a field this crowded, she will still hold her seat, the real question is Bonds versus McDuffie.

That is not the question at all. Bonds will retain her seat simply because she has a "D" next to her name on the ballot. It's literally that simple for many, many DC voters. Just accept it and move on.

Ask yourself this: Why is McDuffie campaigning against Silverman but not Bonds? He's literally not mentioning Bonds, because doing so would be pointless. He sees Silverman as the more vulnerable incumbent because of the way the at-large election is conducted, and because he figures a large segment of the DC electorate will choose a POC over a privileged white woman. Might be cynical, but that's DC politics.

There is only one thing worse in politics than having people say bad things about you and that is to have people say nothing about you at all. The notoriety that Silverman is gaining probably works to her favor, particularly given Bonds’ relative invisibility. It will be close but my money would be on Silverman and McDuffie.

[Anonymous]

https://twitter.com/CRC2622/status/1587828152356769792?t=QOceb0_SFOgVwDzBRwG3tQ&s=19

This is the state of DC's unemployment system right now. Tell me again how Elissa Silverman's oversight is something to be praised?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://twitter.com/CRC2622/status/1587828152356769792?t=QOceb0_SFOgVwDzBRwG3tQ&s=19

This is the state of DC's unemployment system right now. Tell me again how Elissa Silverman's oversight is something to be praised?

Instead of being an overseer of the DC unemployment system, Silverman may be a client soon.