Thursday, July 10, 2014

TKC EXCLUSIVE: SMITH SUPPORTERS RESPOND TO CAMPAIGN LIT QUESTIONS!!!



It's the silly season in Jackson County and campaign time has politicos slugging it out.

Yesterday, we posted a note on controversy surrounding Sherwood Smith Campaign Lit . . .

RIGHT NOW . . . SHERWOOD SMITH SUPPORTERS FACT CHECK AND ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR CAMPAIGN MATERIAL!!!

Background that isn't in this note . . . The photo was taken in 2009 when legislation that Sherwood Smith had written to benefit first responders was signed into law by Gov. Jay Nixon. Also, we're still trying to track down the blonde in the background . . .

Here's a bit more detail . . .

TKC: Whoever sent you the suggestion that those officers pictured in the mailer are even potentially at risk of being fired or otherwise penalized is grossly misrepresenting the law here.

Here is what the law says:

"No officer or employee of such department shall solicit any person to vote for or against any candidate for public office, or "poll precincts" or be connected with other political work of similar character on behalf of any political organization, party, or candidate while on duty or while wearing the official uniform of the department."

None of the uniformed personnel in that picture were soliciting any person to vote for Sherwood and none were connected with any politically related activity to elect Sherwood when this photo was taken. This is an old picture taken when Gov. Nixon announced the Line of Duty Death Bill, which was not a political activity of the type for which a uniformed First Responder can be penalized under this statute. This was taken long before Sherwood's campaign existed.

Are you or whoever sent you this gross misinterpretation of the law suggesting that these uniformed officers can be somehow penalized for having been photographed, long before anyone knew of the existence of Sherwood's campaign, for the announcement about a bill designed to help the families of first responders who died in the line of duty?

The type of solicitation this bill was designed to prevent is far from present in this picture or on this walk piece. This represents yet another example in a series of misrepresentations designed to deceive voters and malign First Responders.
##########

This post and debate is now linked to the previous note on the topic. Developing . . .

23 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Did they happen to mention his views on unsolicited bulk email?

Anonymous said...

They are right about the legality of using this photo, but it was still a poor choice of photos to use on campaign literature. The photo infers they are supporting Sherwood Smith when are they are in fact supporting a piece of legislation(which is not explained). Bottom line is that Sherwood's handlers are guilty of misleading voters. Those folks in the photo should not be happy with Sherwood's poor judgement.

Anonymous said...

Bulk email huh...

Do you have a life?

Anonymous said...

Man he is beginning more and more to look like Sherbama.

Anonymous said...

7:20 - so you think it is strange that someone is annoyed by unsolicited bulk e-mail and yet you are so annoyed by the posts about unsolicited bulk e-mail?

Anonymous said...

7:15 AM: Read the comment under the picture on the door hanger. It says that it is a photo taken at the signing of the legislation mentioned previously. It is not misleading.

Anonymous said...

Straight from the US Gov website:

"(5) They are generally prohibited from engaging in partisan campaign activity on federal property, on official duty time, or activity while wearing a uniform or insignia identifying them as federal officials or employees, or while using a government vehicle."

OK, so Sherwood's defense is that he didn't consult them so they are not guilty of the violation, namely by appearing in campaign literature in a uniform? Weak. And at the best very very poor judgment. Sherwoods campaign "friends" knows the rules but let Sherwood step into this one. Why is that? Hmmmm.

Anonymous said...

Straight from the US Gov website:

"(5) They are generally prohibited from engaging in partisan campaign activity on federal property, on official duty time, or activity while wearing a uniform or insignia identifying them as federal officials or employees, or while using a government vehicle."

OK, so Sherwood's defense is that he didn't consult them so they are not guilty of the violation, namely by appearing in campaign literature in a uniform? Weak. And at the best very very poor judgment. Sherwoods campaign "friends" knows the rules but let Sherwood step into this one. Why is that? Hmmmm.

Anonymous said...

Sherwood's defense is that the picture was not taken for Sherwood's campaign, it was taken during the 2009 announcement of the Line of Duty Death Bill. Even if he had consulted with the officers, it would still not be a violation for them, because they were not engaging in partisan activity at that time the photo was taken.

Anonymous said...

Sherbama made it a possible violation for the uniformed personnel when he used the photo for his campaign/political gain. The implication of the political advertisement is that the people pictured support Sherbama. I doubt there will be any charges against them; he owes them an apology.

Anonymous said...

That pocket hankie is too much.

Like the cherry on top of a Sherbama Choc Malt.

Anonymous said...

I see the supreme beaner is deleting from his "free speech" forum again

CRZ said...

Dude, post it again. I really doubt TKC deleted your comment. Do you really have something that controversial to say about this? Doubt it. Write whatever you want, I've attacked TKC and called him out all the time and never been deleted. I think your computer might be fucked up.

Anonymous said...

This is all bullshit cooked up by SS to get his name out there circulating cause he's way behind in the polls. If he does a direct attack at Frank White he gets even more people to vote for White who is considered a Kansas City-born institution.

Anonymous said...

The one who ought to be prosecuted is Nixon. He is always campaigning.

Tuluride said...

It is common practice to have civilians sign a legal release before using their image on campaign material. Very common practice. Sherwood Smith screwed up. Now he wants to obfuscate.
(Sherwood here's the definition.

ob·fus·cate

verb
render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.)

This candidate is unworthy of my vote.

Anonymous said...

This candidate is not worthy of anyone's vote. let alone yours 4:01 PM.

Frank White is the right vote.

Anonymous said...

Frank is a great human and he would be the perfect neighbor. I've spent quite of time with him over the past years and consider him one of the best people I've ever met. If I were to consider voting for him I would have to know why. To date I have yet to know what his stance is on any issue, what he has done in the community and what efforts he plans on expending. At least I know that with Smith.

Local 36 said...


Dear neighbor, just what do you talk about with Frank White? Just baseball?
This man has years of professional success and professional demeanor. This link is to a YouTube clip Feed the Hungry.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSKeRIBZtvE

I stress professionalism as I have seen Sherwood Smith lash out at people who do not see things his way.

Anonymous said...

I heard John Rizzo was also quite beside himself about this. Of all the photos, Sherwood Smith picks the one with Rizzo under the podium.

Anonymous said...

That shits funny, I don't care who you are.

Anonymous said...

How are you going to fire the MAST employees, the ones in the gray uniforms?

Anonymous said...

5:17 PM...hope they show you on the disclosure reports as getting paid for that bullshit you typed.

Campaign Workers for Sherbama are sneaky sombitches to post in here actin like joe citizen.