Friday Open Thread

Okay, me thinks this stinks trickery
Some weak links in the chain of the mystery
Time for that mist to leave
By way of the breeze, flows formed by my speak

–Del the Funky Homosapien

The shirtless sheriff is back in the news

The first post of the day is mine! From the early edition of the Local Paper of Record

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26830913/probe-maketa-took-favors-mishandled-internal-investigation?source=rss

Trouble finds some candidates. Others bait a trap for it.

“Liberal” NPR goes with Gardner’s lies about Personhood and Women’s health

I truly believe NPR's Mara LIasson has Stockholm Syndrome from being a Fox News Analyst for many years. That's exactly what Roger Ailes wanted by hiring her and Juan Williams way back when, and when she clearly spouts Republican rhetoric over the People's airwaves on all those "liberal" NPR stations it becomes quite clear:

 

 

Morning Edition: Liasson Spins Gardner's Record To Paint Him As A Prime Example Of GOP Outreach To Women. On October 30, NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson appeared on Morning Editionto discuss the importance of the women's vote in the 2014 midterms. Liasson claimed that Republicans like Senate candidate Cory Gardner disprove Democrats' narrative that GOP policies hurt women, misrepresenting his policy positions in order to claim the Republican is "affirmatively going after the women's vote this year by changing their positions." [NPR, Morning Edition10/30/14]

There's more. And it's sad, though not unexpected, that the Liberal NPR has such a right-wing bias in their political coverage.

Did Democrats or Republicans Guess Wrong on Spanish-Language TV?

SEIU Colorado TV ad

Somebody guessed wrong on Spanish-language television buys in Colorado. Was it Democrats…or Republicans?

 

We haven't seen the hard numbers on this yet, but as it has been explained to us, 2014 has seen considerably more money spent on Spanish-language media buys than any other mid-term election (anecdotally, of course, it makes perfect sense). In fact, spending on Spanish-language media is at a level comparable to the 2012 Presidential election. That spending has not been equal among Democrats and Republicans, however, and on Tuesday evening we will have a pretty good idea of which Party made the wrong decision. Democrats have spent much more money on Spanish-language television than Republicans; media buys for Democratic Sen. Mark Udall alone have dominated the airwaves on Univision in Colorado.

Republican Senate candidate Cory Gardner launched his first Spanish-language TV ad in Colorado today, the same day in which the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was promoting another new Spanish-language ad in a media campaign that has been underway for months (check out the SEIU press release from Oct. 7 after the jump). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has run a Spanish-language TV ad with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush endorsing Gardner, but the Gardner campaign itself had not ventured into the medium until today. Coincidentally, NBC News reports on the attraction for politicos of Spanish-language media around the country:

That means in places like Colorado, there are many more Spanish-language ads than in previous elections, the sort of “wall-to-wall coverage” that non-Latino white voters have long been accustomed to seeing in elections, Chambers said. On top of that, Hispanic advocacy and other groups are doing field work, knocking on doors to register and turn out Latino voters and making sure those who can get their ballots mailed in…

…An ad titled “Tu Poder” running in Colorado – paid for by People for the American Way and NexGen Climate and done by Chambers – hits several themes at once to reach Latinos. It shows a mailbox to explain the new Colorado voting law in which every registered voter gets a mail-in ballot that has to be mailed back by Oct. 31 and it also touches on issues of the environment and health.

The ad for Colorado’s Democratic Sen. Mark Udall opens with several official ballot packets landing on a table and a narrator saying “Este es tu poder. (This is your power.)" That line is repeated later and followed by “úselo (use it.)”

The ad is part of a multiyear effort People for the American Way (PFAW) designed to reach Latino voters. Randy Borntrager, political director of the liberal group, said in 2014 Latinos “could be kingmaker” in several of the close 10 Senate races.

What's so fascinating about this disparity with Spanish-language media buys is that it offers a unique opportunity to examine different strategies in play. Just like any other big-money industry, politics is a copycat business. Everybody does TV and mail. Everybody does online advertising. Everybody has some sort of field campaign. But in this particular case, only one Party can be correct about their decision on how to allocate money for Spanish-language media (and TV specifically).

The relative importance of Spanish-language media to each Party is pretty clear in 2014, but by 2016 lessons will have been learned and cats copied.

If the Latino vote in Colorado does prove to be the final arbiter in many of these races, we can guess which side will be doing the copying in two years.

(more…)

Citizens United: The Ultimate Colorado Politics Faux Pas

We wrote earlier this week about the new "shockumentary" from national conservative filmmakers Citizens United on the "takeover" of Colorado by Democrats beginning in 2004, Rocky Mountain Heist. As we discussed, the film is mostly a hyped-up version of Adam Schrager's excellent book on the same subject, Blueprint: How the Democrats Won Colorado, with as much bombast as host Michelle Malkin could muster (which is apparently quite a lot). Mostly the film doesn't allege anything more than, well, really effective Democrats–and where it does, it's so inaccurate that it's more or less laughable.

Although Rocky Mountain Heist is now available online to watch for free online, we ordered a DVD copy almost two weeks ago. It finally arrived yesterday, and we were immediately struck by the cover photo:

rockymountainheist

The mountains in the background of the DVD cover for Citizens United's Rocky Mountain Heist are indeed in the Rocky Mountains. The problem is, this is a photo of the Canadian Rockies. The image you see is a very common stock photo of Moraine Lake, located in Banff National Park in Alberta. Here's another photo of this picturesque but foreign location:

winter_moraine_lake_alberta_canada-wallpaper-1152x720

In Colorado politics, one of the worst embarrassments possible is the use of mountains not located in our state in campaign ads and literature. Back in August, National Right To Life pulled down a social media graphic touting their endorsement of Cory Gardner after it was found to feature Wyoming's Mount Moran. Earlier this year, the Colorado GOP's independent expenditure committee used photos of Utah to extol "restoring Republican values to Colorado." Back in 2009, Scott McInnis used a photo from the same Banff National Park in Canada on his website, and in 2008 Bob Schaffer's family jumped out of a photo of Alaska's Denali instead of the intended Pikes Peak in a campaign TV spot. Most of these incidents were followed by lampooning local media coverage.

To some this may seem like small potatoes, but the truth is that proud Coloradans do not appreciate these kinds of mistakes–coming across as pandering by out-of-state interests to whom "all mountains look alike." Colorado has worked hard to overcome our flyover state reputation, and this is the exactly the sort of indifference that rips the scab off that longstanding resentment. It's also an inexcusably-lazy mistake to have made, particularly when so many others have already tripped over this.

Colorado Democrats in particular should find it pretty ironic.

Tea Party Express Endorses Mike Coffman (Shhh, Don’t Tell Anyone)

TeaParty-MikeCoffman

Tea Party Express, which bills itself as the largest Tea Party political action committee in the country, announced yesterday — yes, yesterday — that it is endorsing Republican Congressman Mike Coffman in CD-6. Check out the endorsement press release, however, and note how the language is so plain that it could apply to just about any interest group:

Tea Party Express’ Executive Director Taylor Budowich said, “Representative Mike Coffman is a solutions-driven leader. We need a problem solver like Mike to continue to get to the bottom of serious issues. We are confident he will keep the ball rolling to provide real answers for Americans.

It almost sounds like, We endorse Mike Coffman because we are endorsing Mike Coffman. We'd say that getting this endorsement is akin to the old "kissing your sister" line, but that wouldn't be fair to your sister.

Claims on Seniors and ACA in Senate Race Don’t Mesh With Facts

(Don't believe the hype – promoted by Colorado Pols)

obamascare

Two campaign claims are being made in Colorado’s U.S. senate race about the Affordable Care Act and seniors. Political ads are often designed to scare or anger people rather than inform them, and that sure seems to be the case here.  

Claim No. 1
The Affordable Care Act “cleared the way for cuts to Medicare Advantage,” and “didn’t protect Colorado seniors” but instead puts “them in harm’s way.”

Medicare Advantage (MA) is the private insurance version of traditional Medicare. MA plans must cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits, but they have additional benefits, for which policyholders pay extra. More than 256,000 Coloradans are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, and they represent about 36 percent of the state’s total Medicare population.

The federal Medicare program reimburses Medicare Advantage insurance companies for the cost of traditional Medicare coverage. Prior to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), MA plans were paid 14 percent more on average per enrollee than for enrollees in traditional Medicare. That translated into an additional $1,280 per MA enrollee, or about $14 billion in higher payments to insurance companies. Those excess payments contributed significantly to concerns about Medicare’s long-term financial solvency. In 2009, it also meant an additional $40 per year in Part B premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries. The excess payments were also ironic, since one of the big selling points for Medicare Advantage legislation in the late 1990s was that its reliance on private-market insurance would reduce long-term Medicare spending.

In response, the ACA included provisions to reduce MA overpayments while at the same time providing incentives for improvements in quality. The transition to lower rates began in 2012 and is scheduled to end in 2017. Between 2009 and 2014, those reimbursements were reduced by an average of 8 percent.  Even so, in 2014, MA plan reimbursement rates are still about 6 percent higher than traditional Medicare.

Additionally, while cuts were implemented over the last two years, because of reductions in overall Medicare spending, reimbursement payments to MA carriers will actually increase rather than decrease in 2014 and 2015.

It’s also illegal under the ACA for Medicare Advantage plans to reduce or eliminate traditional Medicare benefits.  

(more…)

Andrew Romanoff and Mike Coffman are the Hardest-Working House Candidates in the Country

Coffman and Romanoff in CD-6

Rep. Mike Coffman, left, and Democrat Andrew Romanoff are probably pretty sick of each other at this point.

Partisan bickering is at its highest point as we approach Election Day, so it's refreshing to take a little break and recognize the hard work being done by candidates across Colorado.

As National Journal reports, our own CD-6 is home to the two hardest-working U.S. House candidates in the entire country:

Romanoff has arguably been the most impressive and hard-working Democratic candidate in America in 2014—and Coffman has met the challenge. Together, the two campaigners have been running a grueling two-year marathon in a district like no other in the country, leaving their young staffers equal parts impressed and sprinting to keep up…

…Both candidates have excelled in another, quantifiable area of political preparedness. Romanoff raised more money (around $5 million) than any other House challenger in the country in 2013 and 2014, a particularly impressive feat considering that he didn't accept funds from political action committees. And Coffman, who was not a particularly good fundraiser in his first few years in Congress, kept close behind his opponent. Given how gobs of outside money flock to the few competitive House races these days, that cash has proven necessary for both candidates to get their own messages out this fall.

On the ground, Democrats have been executing a massive field program in Colorado to try to get unlikely voters to cast ballots this fall, and Romanoff has been personally knocking on doors for months as part of that effort. But the GOP has a smaller cohort of "drop-off" voters too, and Coffman has executed a labor-intensive strategy to get their help in a district President Obama carried twice.

PPP: Udall, Gardner Tied at 48%, Hickenlooper, Beauprez at 47%

UPDATE: SurveyUSA released its final poll of 2014 today for the Denver Post, showing the gubernatorial race tied and the Senate race within two points:

A poll conducted this week shows Gardner at 46 percent and Udall at 44 percent — a narrow edge within the four-percentage-point margin-of-error. The poll surveyed those who are likely to vote and those who returned ballots in Colorado's first all-mail election…

This SurveyUSA poll appears to have the same problem their director candidly admitted to, crosstabs for Latino voters and women that don't make much sense:

The poll shows Udall's advantage among Latino voters is only three points and only six points among women. Based on past elections, Democrats expect both margins to grow significantly.

In 2010 and 2012, for instance, more than 80 percent of Latino voters supported the Democratic candidates…

Either way, here are two polls that strongly counter the prevalent spin about Garner's "momentum." This race is right where it's been for months–and we're bracing for a photo finish that no one has any real ability to predict today.

—–

Mark Udall, Cory Gardner.

Mark Udall, Cory Gardner.

The latest survey from Public Policy Polling for the League of Conservation Voters finds both the Colorado U.S. Senate race and gubernatorial races at a perfect deadlock:  48% each for Sen. Mark Udall and Republican Cory Gardner, and a 47% tie between Gov. John Hickenlooper and his Republican opponent Bob Beauprez. From PPP's memo this morning:

-Mark Udall and Cory Gardner are both getting 48% of the vote, with just 4% of voters remaining undecided. Gardner had led by small margins on each of PPP’s previous two polls of the race.

* Udall has notably improved his standing with independents and now leads 59/38 with them. He is also tied based on his strength with the core Democratic constituencies that have helped the party be so successful in Colorado in recent years- he’s up 53/42 with women, 63/27 with Hispanics, and 53/40 with voters under 45.

-John Hickenlooper and Bob Beauprez are each getting 47% in the race for Governor. Hickenlooper has a 55/38 advantage with independents, and similarly to Udall is doing very well with women (51/42), Hispanics (55/27), and younger voters (50/39).

Here's the full memo and crosstabs.

The trajectory between polls from PPP in the Senate race is good news for Udall–their last survey in mid-October showed Gardner leading by three points, and another poll by PPP for Americans for Tax Fairness had Gardner up by two. In the mid-October poll, Hickenlooper led Beauprez by one statistically insignificant point, and the lack of movement there makes a hell of a lot more sense than Quinnipiac's wild swings over the course of too few days.

These numbers say what you already know: this election is going down to the wire.

Judge, No “Persuasive Reason” Given that Colorado PERA COLA Benefit is Not a State Contract.

"Joshua Sharf is a fiscal policy analyst for the Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Denver."

From the Greeley Tribune article, October 29, 2014: "Sharf: Good and bad news for PERA in Colorado Supreme Court’s decision:

"The Colorado Supreme Court granted some good news to the state’s troubled public pensions last week by upholding a key part of an important 2010 reform law. In the process, though, the court may have made it more difficult to enact more meaningful reform down the road."

(See: http://coloradopols.com/diary/64487/the-colorado-supreme-court-politicians-in-black-robes-as-it-turns-out)

"Four years ago the Colorado Legislature adopted Senate Bill 1 to reform the state’s Public Employees Retirement Association. Among other changes, the bill lowered the cap on retirees’ annual cost-of-living adjustments from 3.5 percent to 2 percent. The court upheld this particular provision, which was designed to help reduce PERA’s future financial shortfall."

(Joshua, for the record the current long-term inflation assumption of the Colorado PERA pension system is 3.5%. Also, why is it surprising that when states break governmental contracts, this breach of contract improves a state's financial condition?)

"SB 1’s changes applied to current as well as future retirees. A group of current retirees, unhappy with having their cost of living capped, sued."

(Joshua, the Colorado PERA COLA benefit of the retiree plaintiffs in this case, Justus v. State, was already "capped" prior to the litigation of the case, Justus v. State. The COLA was "capped" in Colorado law at 3.5%. In this case, the Colorado Supreme Court ignored the existing evidence, ignored the findings of the Colorado Court of Appeals, and rendered judgment in the case without trial or discovery. This, in spite of an obligation of US courts to give "heightened scrutiny" to state attempts to escape their own financial obligations under the US Supreme Court case, US Trust.

Joshua, just as your mortgage rate might be "capped" at a fixed rate, perhaps 4%, the PERA COLA is a provision in a contract, here a Colorado statutory contract. As an organization that supports the US Constitution, I find it odd that the Independence Institute is so eager to see Colorado state contracts abrogated. The State of Colorado also contracts with corporations.)

"The plaintiffs had some reason for optimism. While it has long been held that states cannot create contractual obligations through Legislation, the Colorado Supreme Court had carved out an exception for public pensions in two decisions: McPhail (1959) and Bills (1961)."

(Joshua, I am happy that the Independence Institute acknowledges Colorado's long-standing on-point public pension case law. This reveals a level of sophistication that exceeds that of the Denver District Court's Judge Hyatt [recently retired] who conveniently failed to even mention Colorado's on-point public pension case law [Bills and McPhail] in the Denver District Court Decision in this case. For the record, this Denver District Court Decision was embraced by the Colorado Supreme Court in its political decision to take the contracted PERA COLA benefit.)

"The Justices drew a distinction between those cases and the current one, known by its lead plaintiff, Justus. The court decided that cost-of-living adjustments were not part of the core formula for determining benefits. They also recognized that the Legislature had changed the adjustments formula a number of times in the past. As a result, the majority ruled that the retirees had no reasonable expectation that a contract had been created."

(Joshua, you don't seem to be bothered by the fact that, in this Colorado Supreme Court Decision, one branch of Colorado state government has excused the debt of another branch of state government. As was noted in the Colorado Court of Appeals Decision in this case, the plaintiffs contested the diminishment of the value of their contracts, rather than a "change" in the contractual terms. "Changes" to the COLA that improve the benefit do not impair the contract. If your mortgage company unilaterally lowered your mortgage rate, you would suffer no harm.

Did the Colorado Supreme Court justices even bother to read the Decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals? The Colorado Court of Appeals noted in its Decision that “plaintiffs contend that they have a reasonable expectation of an IRREDUCIBLE [not, as defendants asserted, an UNCHANGEABLE] COLA benefit.  Colorado Court of Appeals: “Therefore, we direct the district court to consider whether there has been a substantial impairment with that in mind.”

Instead of acknowledging up front that the plaintiffs in the case Justus v. State were contesting the provisions of SB10-001 that REDUCED the PERA retiree COLA benefit, the defendants in the case, Colorado PERA and the State of Colorado, employed a “red herring,” claiming that the plaintiffs were arguing that the COLA benefit could not be legally “adjusted,” that it was UNCHANGEABLE. Colorado PERA’s deception worked on the lower court, the District Court, but the Colorado Court of Appeals, in their Decision saw through this red herring. Perhaps the Colorado Supreme Court would have also seen through the red herring if the court had carefully read the Court of Appeals Decision, or actually sought the truth in this case.

Does the Independence Institute support the Colorado Judicial Branch's use of a red herring in escaping state contractual obligations?

Joshua, are you aware that even Colorado PERA's lawyers have the "reasonable expectation" that the Colorado PERA COLA benefit is contractual? If Colorado PERA's lawyers have this expectation, why should Colorado PERA retirees not also have this expectation?

December 16, 2009

Colorado PERA officials in written testimony to the Joint Budget Committee: “The General Assembly cannot decrease the COLA (absent actuarial necessity) because it is part of the contractual obligations that accrue under a pension plan protected under the Colorado Constitution Article II, Section 11 and the United States Constitution Article 1, Section 10 for vested contractual rights.”

http://www.kentlambert.com/Files/PERA_JBC_Hearing_Responses-12-16-2009_Final.pdf)

"Coates noted that by framing the decision the way it did, the majority bought into the plaintiffs’ logic, and that there were elements of the plan that the Legislature would not be able to change without violating the Contracts Clause."

"Coates also believes the court failed to give a persuasive reason why the adjustments were exempt from the legislative contracting exception. Taken together, these two elements effectively leave areas of the plan concerning current retirees off-limits to the Legislature. Further, the court offers no guidance as to what those areas might be."

(Joshua, thank you for juxtaposing the opinion of Colorado Supreme Court Justice Coats with the opinion of politicians sitting on the Colorado Supreme Court.)

"Without such guidance, future legislatures will be less informed about what reforms will pass constitutional muster. They will be less likely to take on broad reforms unless and until drastic action is needed, and there is little margin for error."

(Joshua, if the Colorado Legislature actually desired information regarding Colorado PERA pension reforms that would pass constitutional muster, the Colorado Legislature would have sent an interrogatory to the Colorado Supreme Court with such queries in 2009. The Colorado PERA Board of Trustees, to their credit, took the position that such an interrogatory should be sent. The Leadership of the Colorado Legislature, inexplicably, opted against sending this interrogatory to the Supreme Court. This decision was, of course, made prior to the defendant's shift in their legal strategy from seeking a one-time breach of the COLA contract through "actuarial necessity," to pursuing elimination of this Colorado PERA contractual obligation in its entirety. The Colorado Legislature did not want guidance from the court in 2009.)

"By failing to lay out clear rules for what is permissible and what isn’t with respect to existing benefits, the Court’s ruling in Justus, celebrated for helping PERA’s finances right now, may end up making such a bleak scenario more likely in the future."

(Joshua, you do not seem so concerned with the "bleak scenario" of Colorado taxpayers paying billions of dollars in corporate welfare each year.  This corporate welfare is provided by the Colorado Legislature. Google "Colorado Tax Expenditure Report." The Colorado Legislature has directed these billions of dollars to corporate welfare in lieu of paying its public pension bills. This has gone on for more than a decade.)

http://www.greeleytribune.com/news/13574970-113/court-legislature-adjustments-pera

At Least He’s Not Your Presidential Candidate…Yet

Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Sen. Lindsey Graham.

CNN reports on South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham's all too candid remarks at a private club in Charleston this month, recorded without his knowledge:

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is toying with the idea of a presidential bid, joked in a private gathering this month that "white men who are in male-only clubs are going to do great in my presidency," according to an audio recording of his comments provided to CNN…

In the recordings, Graham, who is favored in his race for re-election next Tuesday against Democrat Brad Hutto, appears to joke about the possible 2016 presidential bid he recently floated in an interview with the Weekly Standard.

"I'm trying to help you with your tax status," Graham says in the recording. "I'm sorry the government's so f—ed up. If I get to be president, white men in male-only clubs are going to do great in my presidency." [Pols emphasis] The crowd is then heard laughing.

We don't doubt it for a minute, but you're not supposed to say so. Not even in South Carolina.

Does bishops’ “neutral” stance on Amendment 67 shed light on Gardner’s preferred path to personhood

Colorado’s Catholic Bishops, speaking through the Colorado Catholic Conference, announced their “neutral stance” last week on Colorado’s latest personhood measure, Amendment 67.

The Bishops’ announcement came in a news release denouncing an anti-personhood media campaign by Catholics for Choice, a national organization that challenges the “Vatican on matters related to sex, marriage, family life and motherhood.”

A spokeswoman for Catholics for Choice points to tacit support by Colorado Bishops for Amendment 67, despite their professed neutrality on the measure, by allowing congregations to organize in support of it. You can find more details on a post of mine today on RH Reality Check.

You wonder what the bishops are thinking and how they justify it. And a trip back four years sheds some light on the matter.

The bishops’ statement of neutrality this year doesn’t get into the details, but back in 2008, when the personhood initiative first appeared in Colorado, they articulated their belief that a personhood amendment, if successful, could undermine the church’s goal of bestowing legal rights on zygotes or fertilized eggs.

The 2008 statement by Colorado Bishops Charles J. Chaput, Arthur N. Tafoya, Michael J. Sheridan, argues that a state personhood amendment is the wrong tactic to achieve personhood, because the federal courts could use it to affirm Roe v. Wade:

We admire the goals of this year’s effort to end abortion, and we remain committed to defending all human life from conception to natural death. As we have said from the start, however, we do not believe that this year’s Colorado Personhood Amendment is the best means to pursue an end to abortion in 2008…

Constructive alternatives to reduce abortions and advance the ultimate objective of ending abortion, however, do exist at the state level.

In the last two years, state level legislative strategies to protect life have included: increased penalties for attacks on pregnant women which result in the death of the unborn child; informed consent and ultrasound legislation which would have required a woman to be notified of her right to receive an ultrasound before an abortion was performed; and a complete abortion ban.

The Catholic Church in Colorado has a long and active history of working, through state legislative efforts and other community initiatives, to protect life from conception to natural death. We will continue through every realistic means to work toward this end. [BigMedia emphasis]

Maybe that’s why Gardner opposes personhood at the state level but supports in in Washington. He thinks it’s a more realistic way to ban abortion and common forms of birth control. That’s speculation, but with Gardner apparently lying about personhood, what else can you do.

After all, like Beauprez, Gardner has said his position is the “same” as Archbishop Chaput.

Um, You’re Breaking the Law, Don Suppes

THURSDAY UPDATE: The Grand Junction Sentinel's Charles Ashby:

Suppes said the town long has had a policy of allowing town trustees to use town hall for personal reasons as long as no taxpayer dollars are spent.

“Under town policy, board members can use town hall free of charge,” he said. “We all have a key to town hall, and as long as we don’t have to have somebody open or close, there is no policy against it.”

But Donovan said this is about state law, not local policies.

“The rules that I operate under are not to use any of my professional assets to run for a public office,” Donovan said. “I don’t know what the letter of the law says, but my interpretation of the color of the law is, if you’re a public official, you don’t use any of those assets to run for another office. You can’t use the power of an office to influence voters. It’s not just about tax dollars.”

—–

Donald Suppes

Republican Don Suppes

When we last left Republican Don Suppes, the Orchard City mayor running for the open seat in SD-5, he and his campaign were still trying to add to their list of reasons why his Twitter account would be linking to a white supremacist website (It was hacked! It was identity theft! It was a rogue staffer!) 

We already know that Suppes isn't very good at 1) the Internet, and 2) messaging. Now we can add 3) posing for pictures, and 4) following the law.

According to a complaint submitted to the Trustees of the Town of Orchard City (Suppes-Complaint PDF), Suppes has been using the Orchard City Town Hall as a campaign office. That's right, the Mayor of Orchard City is using the Town Hall as part of his campaign for a State Senate seat.

It doesn't appear as though Suppes' campaign finance records include reimbursements to Orchard City for using its Town Hall, which is such an obvious violation of the law that Suppes should be disqualified from the SD-5 race just for being so inexcusably stupid. But if you think that's dumb, wait 'til you see how the violation was uncovered…

…Hey, there's Don Suppes himself, grinning away in a photo taken in front of a table full of campaign literature and next to a giant poster that proclaims "Town of Orchard City!" What could go wrong? And what are the odds that Suppes' campaign has been using other town property for his campaign (quick, somebody destroy the photocopier!)

Don Suppes campaign office

1) Town of Orchard City poster. 2) Mayor and candidate Don Suppes. 3) Table full of Suppes campaign literature.