The Union has done a good job of carrying water for local political gadfly Barry Pruett over the years, whether it is dutifully posting Tom McClintock press releases on its website, omitting key facts from the AtPac lawsuit or publishing uninformed columns by the editor/publisher about our judicial system that benefit candidates whom Pruett supports. Whether intentional or careless, it helpes fuel the perception by some citizens that The Union is the “Tea Party Gazette.”
This time, however, Pruett should have helped out with the rudimentary headline writing (a task the Editor oversees in a newsroom) — not just the story — on his latest campaign: “dirty tricks” allegations against LaMalfa involving a website.
“Aanestad files SEC complaint against rival,” said a big headline on page A3 of this morning’s newspaper.
Come on. As the first sentence reads, “Congressional candidate Sam Aanestad on Monday filed a formal complaint against his biggest rival with the Federal Election Commission, alleging several violations of election law.”
It’s the FEC, not SEC. These regulatory agencies have vastly different roles. At least correct it in the online “paywall” story ASAP.
My prediction: LaMalfa beats Aanestad (whom McClintock is supporting) handily. Negative campaigning is losing its luster, as I’ve been writing recently.
All this “high-brow” political ethics discussion brings to mind another local topic relating to campaign election laws: Do the anti-Nate Beason campaign signs that are being poked in the ground around Nevada City comply with the political sign ordinances? Will the electorate get to know who paid for them?
Funny how one case gets scrutiny and the other gets none. Small-towns, and their political machinations, are a hoot!