Today, I am posting the sixth and last installment of a six-part series debunking Rick Mohrig’s defenses of his terrible record.  This post debunks Mohrig’s allegations of campaign collusion.  Following is a link to Mohrig’s “Facts Matter” campaign web page.

Mohrig’s Facts Matter

False Assertion #6:  Through pure innuendo, Mohrig implies Cranmer is beholden to Milton Families First, an independent committee, and to MFF’s founders.

This is a serious charge with NO substantiation, only innuendo . . . which seems to be a common theme in Mohrig’s campaign and in his surrogates’ anonymous communications.

Milton Families First (MFF) is an independent committee (not to be confused with a PAC) that was formed in July.  The operative word is “independent.”  Legally, Cranmer’s campaign and MFF must operate independently; they cannot coordinate.  Cranmer has NO control over MFF.  However, MFF and Cranmer do share a common goal of thwarting Mohrig’s re-election . . . a goal shared by me, most of council, and (I believe) a large majority of citizens.  So what?

It is TRUE that Cranmer has accepted campaign contributions from two of MFF’s officers, acting in their capacity as private citizens and participating in the political process . . . as is their right.  These contributions are legal and in no way tie Cranmer to MFF.  Like MFF itself, these two private citizens desire to thwart Mohrig’s re-election bid . . . again a goal they share with Cranmer, myself, most of council, and (I believe) a large majority of citizens.  So what?

Mohrig has accepted a few $1000+ contributions.  I am quite sure he would like more such contributions but hasn’t inspired donors to generously contribute.

Regarding MFF, citizens should judge MFF by its actions.  So far, MFF has enunciated three short-term goals:  to oppose Paul Moore’s candidacy; to oppose Rick Mohrig’s candidacy; and to expose/protest Milton’s corrupt elections design/planning process.  I support all three of these short-term goals . . . as do many Milton voters . . . a large majority, I believe. Longer term, if MFF acts in the furtherance of better governance in Milton . . . if MFF acts as a principled government watchdog . . . then MFF can be force for good in Milton. Again, MFF should be judged by its actions.

A vote for Cranmer and Cookerly is a vote AGAINST innuendo-driven smear campaigns.

Citizens, this post is the last installment in my six-part series debunking Mohrig’s defenses of his record.  As Paul Harvey used to say when signing off . . . now you know the rest of the story.  I am cautiously optimistic that Milton will soon be rid of Mohrig and his dishonesty.  I am confident voters will put Milton’s last political dinosaur out to pasture.

Speaking Truth to Power,

Tim

Note 1:  I am including a pdf file that provides my refutation of all six of Mohrig’s defenses of his record on land use, elections, and campaign collusion.  I urge readers to circulate this file to family, friends, and neighbors.  We must NOT let Mohrig get away with distorting his record and smearing his opponent. You can also click the following link to go to a web page that provides the same information:  Refuting Mohrig’s Two New Campaign Website Pages: Facts Matter and Highway 9

Note 2: I was tempted to get wonky about independent committees and talk about notions of political power distribution. In a nutshell, I am an advocate of checks and balances in government. I am an advocate of shifting power to citizens. Currently, nearly all local power is concentrated in Milton City Council . . . in just seven politicians. I am a fan of entities inside city government (like Milton’s recently gutted Charter Commission) or outside city government that can act to check government overreach. My blog and the Milton Herald have served in this capacity. However, individuals are limited in what they we can do. To really exert pressure on government, citizens must organize and spend money . . . and that legally requires registration as an independent committee . . . there is no way around it. Believe it or not . . . just two individuals purchasing a single sign advocating for/against a candidate that they wave at an intersection meet the definition of an independent committee and are legally required to register as an Independent Committee. I believe this is not just, but currently it is the law in Georgia. I believe Georgia’s law governing independent committee is violative of First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, and protest. And the current law certainly discourages citizens from organizing and thus concentrates power in government and politicians, while limiting citizen engagement with politics and government.