which raises questions about his conduct during the recent election.
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer founded a partisan PAC
-
Is there any evidence that he illicitly changed the outcomes of the election?
The question is really whether he accepted money to attempt to change the outcome of the election, and the fact is that he did.
How is that a fact? You don't seem to understand the meaning of the words you typed there.
-
Is there any evidence that he illicitly changed the outcomes of the election?
The question is really whether he accepted money to attempt to change the outcome of the election, and the fact is that he did.How is that a fact? You don't seem to understand the meaning of the words you typed there.
It's a fact because HE DID THAT. Nor is it in dispute that he did.
-
I mean, about the only legible rendering is something like the following: he founded a political action committee that accepted funding in order to advocate, in accordance with all available laws, for certain candidates and/or causes.
One problem with your conception here is the phrase "in accordance with all available laws."
-
I mean, about the only legible rendering is something like the following: he founded a political action committee that accepted funding in order to advocate, in accordance with all available laws, for certain candidates and/or causes.
One problem with your conception here is the phrase "in accordance with all available laws."
Fascinating. What law did his PAC violate? Let's be concrete here.
-
You don't seem to understand what PACs do, OP.
The problem is not whether I do or not (I do). The problem is that Richer's role as County Recorder prohibits him from accepting funding for that PAC - which he did.
What law did his PAC violate? Just answer the question.
-
I mean, about the only legible rendering is something like the following: he founded a political action committee that accepted funding in order to advocate, in accordance with all available laws, for certain candidates and/or causes.
One problem with your conception here is the phrase "in accordance with all available laws."Fascinating. What law did his PAC violate? Let's be concrete here.
It's a state statute. And again, the issue is not that his PAC violated a law, the issue is that Richer did.
-
I mean, about the only legible rendering is something like the following: he founded a political action committee that accepted funding in order to advocate, in accordance with all available laws, for certain candidates and/or causes.
One problem with your conception here is the phrase "in accordance with all available laws."
Fascinating. What law did his PAC violate? Let's be concrete here.It's a state statute. And again, the issue is not that his PAC violated a law, the issue is that Richer did.
So his PAC did not violate any laws. Nice. And what law did Richer violate?
-
16-672. Contest of state election; grounds; venue.
A. Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office, or declared nominated to a state office at a primary election, or the declared result of an initiated or referred measure, or a proposal to amend the Constitution of Arizona, or other question or proposal submitted to vote of the people, upon any of the following grounds:
1. For misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election.
...
3. That the person whose right is contested, or any person acting for him, has given to an elector, inspector, judge or clerk of election, a bribe or reward, or has offered such bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise.
-
16-672. Contest of state election; grounds; venue.
A. Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office, or declared nominated to a state office at a primary election, or the declared result of an initiated or referred measure, or a proposal to amend the Constitution of Arizona, or other question or proposal submitted to vote of the people, upon any of the following grounds:
1. For misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election.
...
3. That the person whose right is contested, or any person acting for him, has given to an elector, inspector, judge or clerk of election, a bribe or reward, or has offered such bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise.Dear lord. You really are that confused about how PACs work, aren't you?
Tell us. Who has accepted a bribe or reward in this case?
-
16-672. Contest of state election; grounds; venue.
A. Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office, or declared nominated to a state office at a primary election, or the declared result of an initiated or referred measure, or a proposal to amend the Constitution of Arizona, or other question or proposal submitted to vote of the people, upon any of the following grounds:
1. For misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election.
...
3. That the person whose right is contested, or any person acting for him, has given to an elector, inspector, judge or clerk of election, a bribe or reward, or has offered such bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise.Dear lord. You really are that confused about how PACs work, aren't you?
Tell us. Who has accepted a bribe or reward in this case?Richer has materially benefited from the contributions made to his PAC.
-
16-672. Contest of state election; grounds; venue.
A. Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office, or declared nominated to a state office at a primary election, or the declared result of an initiated or referred measure, or a proposal to amend the Constitution of Arizona, or other question or proposal submitted to vote of the people, upon any of the following grounds:
1. For misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election.
...
3. That the person whose right is contested, or any person acting for him, has given to an elector, inspector, judge or clerk of election, a bribe or reward, or has offered such bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise.
Dear lord. You really are that confused about how PACs work, aren't you?
Tell us. Who has accepted a bribe or reward in this case?Richer has materially benefited from the contributions made to his PAC.
This is getting really embarrassing. Answer the question: who has accepted a bribe or reward in this case?
-
16-672. Contest of state election; grounds; venue.
A. Any elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office, or declared nominated to a state office at a primary election, or the declared result of an initiated or referred measure, or a proposal to amend the Constitution of Arizona, or other question or proposal submitted to vote of the people, upon any of the following grounds:
1. For misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election.
...
3. That the person whose right is contested, or any person acting for him, has given to an elector, inspector, judge or clerk of election, a bribe or reward, or has offered such bribe or reward for the purpose of procuring his election, or has committed any other offense against the elective franchise.
Dear lord. You really are that confused about how PACs work, aren't you?
Tell us. Who has accepted a bribe or reward in this case?
Richer has materially benefited from the contributions made to his PAC.This is getting really embarrassing. Answer the question: who has accepted a bribe or reward in this case?
Richer has. As I have already stated, he appears to have materially benefited from contributions made to his PAC.