I am sure the letter that I wrote and submitted to the KNS and copied to the knoxgop website, Brian’s Blog and emailed out to the knoxgop email list may be published about August 15, 2006.
I have been told and witnessed it myself, someone early on in this general election cycle was taping flyers to Republican Register of Deeds Steve Hall’s signs, this was never reported. But, for those of us that are not Johnny, come lately to the world of campaigns. We have become use to such childish behavior on the part of over zealous volunteers, as I am sure candidates would never authorize such activity or antics.
Complaint about signs_draws note of skepticism
I must say that I was somewhat amazed when I read in your July 2 edition about political candidate Scott Emge’s assertion that he had 300 yard signs stolen.
First of all, given his opponent Steve Hall’s distinguished record of public service, I find it hard to believe that the Hall campaign would resort to such desperate tactics. I would also question whether these signs have actually been stolen or simply removed by those in authority to do so.
As a former elected official, I am well aware of the laws pertaining to campaign signs. I have seen a good number of Emge’s signs in public rights-of-way and affixed to public utility poles and state and county road signs.
My assumption would be that many of his signs have been removed by officials cleaning up these areas and fixtures.
I can also attest to the fact that Emge’s campaign has placed signs on properties I own, next to signs Hall has already placed with my permission.
When a candidate attempts to place his sign on private property without permission, it is certainly subject to lawful removal.
I also find it rather humorous that Emge refers to these as yard signs, when I have yet to see a single one of his signs in a residential yard.
SCOTT DAVIS
Knoxville
Ok … so I just read the News Sentinel story about Frank Nicely and Stacey Campfield using tax dollars to send mailings. While the article is welcomed, there are major differences between Mr. Nicely’s mailing and Stacey’s. Frank’s mailing was a survey not linked to any other campaign literature. Stacey’s tax sponsored mailings were not so clean… Stacey’s tax-payer mailings were in the exact same format as a mailing paid for by his campaign just a few days earlier. His picture was in the same spot, the colors were exactly the same, the fonts were exactly the same, the background was exactly the same, etc. But of course, the one difference between Stacey’s first mailing and his next two, were that he funded them with tax dollars when he ran out of money.
Another major difference between Frank’s mailings and Stacey’s mailings were timing: Unlike Frank, Stacey sent his mailings during early voting.