Mike Nifong has a habit of using his campaign finance expenditures to reward his supporters. Hence his decision in the primary to double Freda Black in expenditures for Herald-Sun advertising--ignoring the paper's plunging circulation figures but surely benefiting from its one-sided coverage.
The D.A. has done the same thing with the two local political action committees from which he received endorsements. In the primary, he sent $500 to the coffers of the People's Alliance after it endorsed him; the group, which purports to support gay rights, has maintained his endorsement of Nifong in the fall campaign even as he pronounced himself "very pleased" to bring homophobe Victoria Peterson on board as his citizens' committee co-chair.
And now, his most recent campaign finance report shows a $600 contribution, dated July 31, to the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, which subsequently endorsed Nifong despite the 70-year tradition of civil rights groups in this country of upholding civil liberties.
Nifong repeatedly claims he isn't a politician. Perhaps he's right. Politicians usually try to be a little more subtle.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Thanks KC,
The "Disbursements" records tell us a story about the candidates.
K.C., Does this guy have any shame at all? (Did he pay the money out of the loan he gave to his campaign?)
As for these organizations, I must say that they have sold their souls for a very cheap price.
William L. Anderson
they did not endorse nifong for the cash. if cash was an issue, we know who has more of it and it is not nifong but is rather the lax duke crowd. nice try, but it wont work. why don't you write a story about how the campaign finance records show that almost all of cheek's support comes from outside of durham and mostly from out of state. people down here are broiling mad over that whenit was printed in the durham paper and there was a letter in the herald about outside forces(like you KC) trying to control the election and how durham should resist these attempts.
8:11
Number one - I am from "out of state", however, my child is a Duke student. Since she is a member of the Duke community and could potentially become a target of this DA and DPD, I felt an obligation to send money to support Mr. Cheek. It is my responsibility as a parent to protect my child from corrupt police departments. So, many donors do have a direct stake in this election as it has a direct impact on their child's well being.
Secondly, it was my understanding that many donations came from out of state attorneys. These attorneys are probably ashamed that Nifong is representing their profession. Therefore, since reputation of their profession is being tarnished, they also have a stake in the outcome.
Funny, Mr. Nifong's donors seem to come from many of the local defense attorneys who must frequently face him in court. It makes you wonder if they truly support him or if they are hoping for favors down the road.
To 8:11am
I would be more concerned why a lot of Nifong's support comes from local defense attorneys...
I thought Nifong was "tough on crime?"
Is that why serial criminals get the run of Durham?
It is worth noting that nothing, apparently nothing, can get any member of the "justice team" to talk with the complaining witness. Even when she appears to have been pole dancing while also claiming to be in horrible pain, Linwood doesn't call her up. You would think that a simple call to the complainin witness would be in order, but nope, they won't do it.
8:11
Sounds like you think the problem here is with "outside agitators." That is the same tired argument made by segregationist supporters of Jim Crow 40 years ago. Sad how the more things change, the more they stay the same.
I love your work KC. Keep it coming. This is a disgusting injustice. A couple of points I would love for you to look into.
1. You have touched on the school's absolute abandonment of the players(students). Not just the 3 but the entire team earlier this year. It is clear that Brodhead took the stance that they are expendable. Do you have access to information about the timeline during which the players(students let's not forget) were addressed by the university other than Pressler. I trust you would find the results sickening. It makes one think where Brodhead was receiving this advice. Let's focus on the board of trustees for a moment and all the way at the top. It seems rather obvious that Bob Steel was taking a page out of his Goldman Sachs days to protect the institution and let the individuals take the burden. Individuals are always replaceable but one must not let the institution fall. I understand that may work in the corporate world but is this the sort of treatment students should expect when enrolling in a university?
I have had the pleasure of speaking with a handful of first rate university presidents over the last few months. And to a person, the response was somewhere along the lines of "I will tell you one thing, if this happened at my school it would have been handled completely differently. Those kids were held out to dry by the administration." I could not agree more. Not only should Brodhead, Alleva, trask, Wasiolek and Monetta be shown the door but Steel should be examined as well.
Are the individuals on the board at risk personally at all if it is found this was mismanaged from the top down?
2. Seligman mentioned on 60 mins that not only had he not been interviewed/interrogated by Nifong but nor had he been interviewed by any law enforcement. How is this possible? Is this true for Finnerty also? I know Evans was interrogated voluntarily early on.
Keep it up. Love your work.
Post a Comment