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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone in the media needs to find out who is paying Silverman's (likely substantial) lawyer fees. Her campaign cannot accept in-kind contributions and cannot accept discounted billing rates.

It will probably effectively be an in-kind donation from the lawyer because it will be an outstanding unpaid invoice that will be impossible to be repaid.

[Anonymous]

The DC Machine is really trying it’s best to make McDuffie happen.

The guy seems like a strategic idiot, given his debacle with the AG election. Like, he screwed up and now he wants a mulligan to remain on the Council.

Anyways, I really want Silverman to remain on the council. I didn’t cast a 2nd vote in the at-large race because I don’t want either McDuffiee or Bonds to bump her off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DC Machine is really trying it’s best to make McDuffie happen.

The guy seems like a strategic idiot, given his debacle with the AG election. Like, he screwed up and now he wants a mulligan to remain on the Council.

Anyways, I really want Silverman to remain on the council. I didn’t cast a 2nd vote in the at-large race because I don’t want either McDuffiee or Bonds to bump her off.

I’m curious what you think “the machine” has done exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone can watch tomorrow as OCF reaffirms their ruling, keeping in mind that Silverman requested the expedited review. She would have been better served acknowledging the mistake and moving on.

The hearing today is only about the 90 day window originally given (which hasn't expired yet) and will have nothing to do with the merits of the case.

I am no expert, but directly accusing your regulator of lying while you have been subject to sanction for unethical conduct does not seem like a winning strategy.

Silverman’s a bully. Sometimes it works for her, and sometimes not. It’s very possible that she’ll come in third after Bonds and McD.

+1

Turns out if you want people to vote for you, you shouldnt treat them like sh*t.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DC Machine is really trying it’s best to make McDuffie happen.

The guy seems like a strategic idiot, given his debacle with the AG election. Like, he screwed up and now he wants a mulligan to remain on the Council.

Anyways, I really want Silverman to remain on the council. I didn’t cast a 2nd vote in the at-large race because I don’t want either McDuffiee or Bonds to bump her off.

I’m curious what you think “the machine” has done exactly?

One thing it is doing is throwing big money behind him. According to OCF filings, $462K has been spent in the last 2 weeks groups supporting McDuffie. DFER spent $110K in the last 2 weeks. Opportunity DC IEC (an independent PAC) spent $180K on McDuffie (this group receives outside funding including a large contribution from something named "Florida for Everyone"). The DC Association of Realtors IEC has been sending mailers on McDuffie's behalf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone can watch tomorrow as OCF reaffirms their ruling, keeping in mind that Silverman requested the expedited review. She would have been better served acknowledging the mistake and moving on.

The hearing today is only about the 90 day window originally given (which hasn't expired yet) and will have nothing to do with the merits of the case.

I am no expert, but directly accusing your regulator of lying while you have been subject to sanction for unethical conduct does not seem like a winning strategy.

Silverman’s a bully. Sometimes it works for her, and sometimes not. It’s very possible that she’ll come in third after Bonds and McD.

+1

Turns out if you want people to vote for you, you shouldnt treat them like sh*t.

Being a jerk to people is a choice and a really not smart choice for a public official.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone can watch tomorrow as OCF reaffirms their ruling, keeping in mind that Silverman requested the expedited review. She would have been better served acknowledging the mistake and moving on.

The hearing today is only about the 90 day window originally given (which hasn't expired yet) and will have nothing to do with the merits of the case.

I am no expert, but directly accusing your regulator of lying while you have been subject to sanction for unethical conduct does not seem like a winning strategy.

Silverman’s a bully. Sometimes it works for her, and sometimes not. It’s very possible that she’ll come in third after Bonds and McD.

+1

Turns out if you want people to vote for you, you shouldnt treat them like sh*t.

Being a jerk to people is a choice and a really not smart choice for a public official.

She's going to learn this the hard way.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone can watch tomorrow as OCF reaffirms their ruling, keeping in mind that Silverman requested the expedited review. She would have been better served acknowledging the mistake and moving on.

The hearing today is only about the 90 day window originally given (which hasn't expired yet) and will have nothing to do with the merits of the case.

I am no expert, but directly accusing your regulator of lying while you have been subject to sanction for unethical conduct does not seem like a winning strategy.

Silverman’s a bully. Sometimes it works for her, and sometimes not. It’s very possible that she’ll come in third after Bonds and McD.

+1

Turns out if you want people to vote for you, you shouldnt treat them like sh*t.

Being a jerk to people is a choice and a really not smart choice for a public official.

She's going to learn this the hard way.

I've noticed that there appear to be two or three posters who are extremely anti-Silverman who post incessantly. They tend to post the same things over and over again, lacking even basic originality. One of the most prolific anti-Silverman posters doesn't even appear to be a DC resident. This tweet sort of puts things in perspective:

There appears to be an organized effort to astroturf opposition to Silverman. Given the huge amount of outside funding that is backing her opponents, one not need to think too hard about who is behind these efforts. I guess I should be thrilled that DCUM is apparently considered consequential enough to be included in their efforts.

[jsteele]

More evidence of anti-Silverman astroturfing:

[Anonymous]

Maybe instead of a grand conspiracy, the answer is much simpler. That your favored candidate that you are deliberately curating content in favor of is just an unlikable person?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of a grand conspiracy, the answer is much simpler. That your favored candidate that you are deliberately curating content in favor of is just an unlikable person?

She is a perfectly likable person and even if she wasn't, I value policy-making above personality. I suppose you are a huge fan of bot-powered astroturf campaigns? I wonder if whoever is paying for them is reporting them properly on their campaign finance forms. I know that you are stickler when it comes to campaign finance and would want every "t" crossed and every "i" dotted. So, which outside PAC do you think will report "troll farm" as an expenditure?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe instead of a grand conspiracy, the answer is much simpler. That your favored candidate that you are deliberately curating content in favor of is just an unlikable person?

She is a perfectly likable person and even if she wasn't, I value policy-making above personality. I suppose you are a huge fan of bot-powered astroturf campaigns? I wonder if whoever is paying for them is reporting them properly on their campaign finance forms. I know that you are stickler when it comes to campaign finance and would want every "t" crossed and every "i" dotted. So, which outside PAC do you think will report "troll farm" as an expenditure?

To quote Elissa Silverman speaking about Mayor Bowser, “The law is the law, and we have to operate with campaign finance law which has clear guidelines about independent expenditures and coordinated expenditures.”

As long as whoever is doing it is following the law, there is no problem. The problem for Silverman is that she violated the law that she was quite self-righteously claiming just a few years ago was “clear” when she was wagging her finger at the Mayor.

Everyone has different preferences, but I prefer to not like people who are strident, self-righteous hypocrites. She has also left a long trail of people who have directly interacted with her who report that she behaved unprofessionally, which is the kindest way that I can describe it.

[jsteele]

LOL. Troll farms are just fine as long as they follow the law. Tells you everything you need to know about the outside money supported candidates. Fat chance of the troll farm expenses being declared though.

[Anonymous]

Campaign finance law can be tricky to understand, but thanks to the Supreme Court, any individual can spend as much as they want as their Constitutionally protected “speech” as an independent expenditure. So a troll farm can be perfectly legal. Where it gets illegal is if the troll farm is done in coordination with a campaign, which would be illegal. That’s what Silverman means when she said that the law was “clear”.
https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understanding-ways-support-federal-candidates/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone can watch tomorrow as OCF reaffirms their ruling, keeping in mind that Silverman requested the expedited review. She would have been better served acknowledging the mistake and moving on.

The hearing today is only about the 90 day window originally given (which hasn't expired yet) and will have nothing to do with the merits of the case.

I am no expert, but directly accusing your regulator of lying while you have been subject to sanction for unethical conduct does not seem like a winning strategy.

Silverman’s a bully. Sometimes it works for her, and sometimes not. It’s very possible that she’ll come in third after Bonds and McD.

+1

Turns out if you want people to vote for you, you shouldnt treat them like sh*t.

This

I voted for Silverman and think she's a jerk. The others who would win are jerks too and push policies/oversight decisions that I find far worse. And there are no other close contenders, so my second vote went to one of the people I thought better of.