New Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial on Use of State Resources in Challenge to Nader 2004 Petition

Ballot Access News:

The Philadelphia Inquirer of March 11 has this editorial, focusing attention on the fact that the challenge to Ralph Nader’s 2004 Pennsylvania petition was illegally carried out with state resources and state employees. Petition challenges in Pennsylvania are brought by private individuals, yet the people who challenged Nader’s petition used government assets. Nader is still being asked to pay approximately $80,000 to the people who challenged his petition.

The editorial also scolds the Pennsylvania Attorney General for accepting campaign contributions from the law firm that represented the challengers.

8 thoughts on “New Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial on Use of State Resources in Challenge to Nader 2004 Petition

  1. Ross Levin

    Here’s a letter printed today in response:

    Re: “Bonusgate’s coattails,” Thursday:

    Thank you for saying Attorney General Tom Corbett should not have accepted campaign contributions from the Reed Smith law firm and its attorneys while he was investigating whether state employees unlawfully used taxpayer funds and resources to prepare Reed Smith’s challenge of petitions for presidential candidate Ralph Nader in 2004.

    Corbett should remedy his conflict of interest by returning Reed Smith’s money and charging any attorney who knowingly joined or aided the criminal conspiracy that Corbett’s office is prosecuting. Corbett pledged not to accept contributions from parties involved in his “Bonusgate” investigation, and Reed Smith has now confirmed that it was involved. Corbett must give Reed Smith’s money back.

    Finally, the claim that Nader’s 2004 nomination petitions were “fraudulent” is patently false. As Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Thomas Saylor has demonstrated, despite the bombastic language in trial Judge James Gardner Colins’ opinion, only a tiny number of signatures – 1.3 percent of the total – were counted as so-called “forgeries,” and these resulted from pranks or sabotage. This can be confirmed by reference to Colins’ own opinion. To continue repeating this smear, therefore, is inaccurate.

    Oliver B. Hall

    Counsel to Ralph Nader

    Washington

    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100315_Letters_to_the_Editor.html

  2. Pingback: IT industry is divided over wireless chargers | Articles About Laptop Notebooks Online

  3. Pingback: What is Aromatherapy really?

  4. Pingback: What is Aromatherapy really? : Scents Obsession

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *