I wrote:
Nodler only had $68.96 in gifts from lobbyists during August, according to the Ethics Commission documents, two tickets to a "ball game" provided by Sandy Howard of Springfield Chamber of Commerce. One of those tickets was provided by Howard, who also provided another $434.68 ticket to Mrs. Nodler. The disclosure report indicates Nodler solicited yet a third $34.48 ticket. (The ticket for Mrs. Nodler is included on the lobbyist's report, but not on the page for Nodler, a practice the Ethics Commission needs to change.)
The commenters jumped all over my comment that Nodler had solicited a ticket. I suggest they examine lobbyist Sandy Howard's report a bit more carefully. At the top, under the category "solicitation expenditures," a $34.48 ticket for Sen. Nodler is listed. The solicitation category is reserved for gifts that are requested by the legislator.
Yes, I made a typo with the $434.68, and I apologize for not catching it. At the same time, as usual, Nodler's one or two rabid supporters are trying to use that mistake to cover up the basic fact that Nodler not only is the recipient of lobbyists' gifts, but at least is in this instance, he openly requested one.
And as for the commenter who claims that there were only two tickets, please check your facts. The disclosure report for Sen. Nodler, based on the lobbyists' reports, indicates he received two tickets, one of which lobbyist Sandy Howard of the Springfield Chamber of Commerce gave him, the other which he quite obviously asked for.
25 comments:
Fact: Nodler had only $34.48 in gifts listed in this report...period! Not $69.96 as you say. Go back and look at the full report, there is only one gift to Nodler for $34.48, there is no mystery $34.48 in the total, Mrs. Howard made a typo and listed Mrs. Nodler’s ticket on Nodler’s page. You should have known that though from the report summary page listing all gifts. All gifts are accounted for in the total, can't you count? The 1000% error on the gift to Mrs. Nodler is not your only error. I understand from the Springfield Chamber that Ms. Howard made a mistake listing this as a request from the legislator that she intends to amend and correct. Why are you so hostile to the truth Randy? That makes 3 things in your report that are wrong; first inflating the value of the gift to Mrs. Nodler, that’s your fault. Two, doubling the value of the ticket Nodler received, that too is your fault. Third listing this as a request by Nodler, that is a mistake by Ms. Howard that she intends to correct. It is interesting that you get so angry when your false accusations against Nodler are corrected. Why do you get angry instead of being thankful? Are you that hostile to the truth? Remember that’s 3 basic errors in fact and they make up the basis of your post. Kind of like your rumor about MSSU, when you get it wrong, you stick to it. You are so ready to jump on any little error by any politician in there finance reports but when you make mistakes you gloss them over as being "typos" Are "typos" on finance reports also harmless?
Now watch this, Randy will be proven wrong, then a half dozen comments will pop up saying that pro Nodler people are being mean to Randy. It will be lost that Randy in search of something to comment on blew a typo into a false allegation and blew a $34 gift to Mrs. Nodler into $434, but he will say that;'s no big deal , its just a typo. And never mid that he doubled the value of Nodler's ticket based on a typo. Randy, your slander can be called a typo, you lack of remorse proves your malice. don't forget Randy's MSSU presidency fiasco
Until they are changed, I go with the documents. Of course, if Nodler would stop accepting gifts for himself and his wife, I would not have any of this to keep writing about.
What amazes me is that people on this board apparently don't understand that Nodler, as a public official, is fair game for reporting.
He is not some cherished icon on a hill that we should kiss up to every day (don't make me hurl.)
I'm very glad that Randy is reporting on his gifts, his aspirations, his actions. Nodler is being paid with public mone - the public has an interest in his actions.
The people who jump to defend Nodler on this board are probably all working for him. Or they could be him. I can't imagine anyone else really caring that much about what Randy says.
There is a huge difference between reporting and misreporting! I for one have no objection to reporting. The problem arises when the facts aren’t right. Randy’s right to report is no more sacred than the rights of others to challenge false allegations raised by Randy or anyone else and with Randy it is usually because of sloppy work or no work, no effort to truly report by getting the facts. What is interesting is the number of people that complain when the record is set straight, they seem to prefer misinformation.
Sorry Randy.
34 bucks just isn't that much.
If any politician can be bought for 34 dollars, then they can be had for free. I have absolutely no problem with Nodler taking a 34 dollar ticket. At all.
Here's a stupid question: Why can't Gary Nodler pay for his own tickets? I think it should be illegal and punishable by hefty fines for any legislator or other elected official to take any gifts of value from anyone outside his or her immediate family during a term in office. Gifts imply bribes, and special treatment. Elected officials are nothing special. They are public servants with an important job to do. But all too often, elected officials spend most of their time doling out bills and legislation meant to reward constituents or grind special interest axes. Cutting off the gifts would curtail much of this. Also, I think it should be illegal for any public official to benefit financially from consitutents for 5 years after leaving office. This would include jobs and honorariums, and state jobs or federal jobs.
Instead of what happens now, we could compensate by paying them a decent salary and giving them good benefits, and having this salary continue for a year or so after their terms end. It would certainly be cheaper than having people on the dole long after they are gone from office.
Why not just make it illeagal for anyone elected oficial or not to accept gifts outside their family? In fact go all the way no gifts even within a family. No one can acept an invitation to luch or a ballgame, just nothing of the sort. People say they want elected officials to live by the same rules as everyone else, so lets just say no one can give anyone a gift! Big brother can make everyone ehtical.
Anon 6:52---Why can't Nodler pay for his own tickets? Because someone is willing to give them to him. And, by giving him tickets, that someone will expect something in return. Not tomorrow, maybe not next month, but somewhere, sometime, when you least expect it, it will happen.
Don't believe me? Ask Robert Plaster.
And one other thing: YOU pro Nodler people, quit being mean to Randy
Doesn't matter how much it costs, I don't care if it was a $1.00, it was still inappropriate and just shows how he operates...all the time....he's no good, he's no good, he's no good, baby he's no good.
Poor poor Randy, busplunge is right, this is only a place to be mean to Nodler or Hunter or Blunt or Richard, that’s just fine being mean to Republican public servants is fine, but correcting Turner errors is just being mean so quit it now, quit it, this isn't a place for free speech its only for people who agree with Busplunge and other neo-Nazis that don't allow dissent.
Why can't everyone pay for their own tickets, just ban gifts all together, no one in America can give anything to anyone else, including charity. Just make gift giving in any form to any person illeagal. Then people won't be envious and grumpy we can all be the same like Mao wanted it.
This is interesting. People complain that legislators only meet with big business. The Springfield Chamber gets an idea. The Chamber owns a block of season tickets to the Springfield minor league baseball tem. They think it would be a great idea to invite legislator's night at the ballgame, that way the legislators could mingle with everyday people in an everyday setting. The tickets will not cost the chamber any more because they already own them. The Chamber invites the legislators, not enough of them accept to use up all the tickets and some other folks get invited. In the end, some of the tickets go unused. Even though there was no real cost to the Chamber for the tickets because they were part of a surplus and even though some legislators don't particularly want to go but do go just to be nice and accessible to everyday people, the tickets have to be reported at face value. Now the legislators are rapped for accepting gifts, the gift of going to where they may not want to, to be available to citizens. with this logic Legislators should pay for there own breakfast when they go to an eggs & issues breakfast open forum, or maybe better, just don't go, don't meet with citizens when a meal is presented stay away from the people all together because coffee might be served or cookies and the legislator would be accused of accepting gifts for his portion of the bill divided by the number of legislators, even if he ate or drank nothing. So lets be pure, no gifts, in fact no contact. Legislators should never speak to constituents at all. Any form of contact might be improper so if legislators just keep out of touch with all citizens in every circumstance people can feel secure that big business has no advantage. As a state we will be ethically pure
Do they actually mingle with the common folk or just hobnob with the chamber people?
they mingle
They mingle....yeah right.
They slip in for a high dollar fund raiser to only the invited few monied people, beg all they can and get the hell out of town. Then they have the nerve to call back later on and ask committees to round up all the people they can and go door to door for them. The monied people get the "mingling" the peons are asked to do the work. Not this guy.
I saw one at the post office one day. I can't remember if it was a special license plate or whether he had it painted on the car somewhere. But, hey, he looked like he had money, he had the license plate and for probably 5 minutes he walked past people in the post office lobby.
There was no fundraiser at the ballgame at all, no big money people, just regular folks, the point is that this thinking will cut off contact with regular people. Regulating big money gifts might make some sense. Saying legilators shouldn't attend a chamber event at a minor league ballgame or the like is just silly.
To the guy in the post office; Did you say Hi or ask a question? Did you make an attempt to communicate and get rebuffed? Do you have some complaint? Are you saying politicians shouldn't use the mail?
Say hi? Don't be ridiculous. He was moving to fast to say hi to. I walked out the door as he drove up (that's why I noticed the identification). By the time I made it to my car he was walking out the door. I was being kind when I said 5 minutes.
So what's your point? He should have stopped and given you a survey or what? Maybe he was just checking a box and not wasting time. You must be one of the most egocentric people on the planet
"he looked like he had money"? And if he does or doesn't, so what? What difference does that make? Is having money a crime, oh yeah, you are a democrat or is it communist, you don't think people should have money. What a radical you must be!
The real crime here is $34 for a Springfield Cardinal ticket, they should only be about seven bucks. The Chamber is getting ripped off!
Randy, If you will check the Ethics Commission website, you will see that the report has been ammended to remove the $34 solicitation that was posted by error. Of course you should have known this before because the total was off by $34 so it was obviously a mistake as was pointed out to you. When the mistake was pointed out to you, your response was to stick to the mistake and attack those providing correct information. Now that it has been corrected and it is undeniable that Nodler never solicted a gift, what say you?
I say boo-hoo and I’ll write a ranting retraction and prove to the word what a petty little jack-ass I am.
Post a Comment