It is always fascinating to read the Recipient Committee Campaign Statements of our elected officials. These forms, called the 460, have to be filed during and after elections and reveal the source and use of monies by the campaign committees.
The latest report from Mary Janney reveals that her committee received nine individual donations from employees and partners of the local law firm of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon, one of the nations top 25 law firms. These donations totaled $2,200.
Now we all in favor of people providing financial support, but what is curious is that of the 9 people listed as giving so generously, only two seem to be registered voters here in Burlingame. It's great to see paralegals, legal secretaries and office managers feeling so passionate about our town that they dug into their own pockets to support Ms. Janney. Let's hope their year end bonuses are sufficient to cover their generous donations.
The latest report from Mary Janney reveals that her committee received nine individual donations from employees and partners of the local law firm of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon, one of the nations top 25 law firms. These donations totaled $2,200.
Now we all in favor of people providing financial support, but what is curious is that of the 9 people listed as giving so generously, only two seem to be registered voters here in Burlingame. It's great to see paralegals, legal secretaries and office managers feeling so passionate about our town that they dug into their own pockets to support Ms. Janney. Let's hope their year end bonuses are sufficient to cover their generous donations.
- Written by admin
Stephen,
Just to be fair, why don't you list or look into all of the candidates' campaign contributions?
Posted by: Bruce | October 27, 2003 at 09:52 PM
You're right, Bruce, can you give us details of other candidate with such generous donations coming from one firm with only two registered Burlingame voters. Looking forward to your reply.
Posted by: Rosaline | October 27, 2003 at 11:11 PM
Yes, the 460's are always one of the most revealing aspects of any political race. The big question is how will the likes of Galligan and Coffey misrepresent this latest set of filings? Since my wife has corrected a blatant misstatement of her 2001 campaign filings YET AGAIN in last Sunday's Daily News--this time by Mr. Galligan himself, instead of one of his mouthpieces, he may actually have to come up with a new fabrication. But perhaps not.
So when do we get back to the issues? Oh, I forgot there aren't any issues, that's why the next Council meeting was cancelled--lack of anything on the agenda!! You would think SOMETHING needs to be studied right before the election??
Joe Baylock
Posted by: joe baylock | October 28, 2003 at 06:26 AM