Last Thoughts On Mahoney's Voucher
One recent afternoon, a regular reader here relayed that our local state legislator, being featured on
talk radio, touched on the subject of that particular $5,000 campaign expense voucher.
Regular Reader asked for confirmation that nobody here ever actually saw the voucher last summer,
after the legislator had his local pal, followed next by the state house Democratic campaign committee
executive director, get in touch with this editor to try to clarify the circumstances.
Apparently, State Rep Tim Mahoney, 51st District, said on the recent talk radio broadcast that he would
never show the voucher to the persons who requested it -- you know, because there was bad blood, since
they went to court and thwarted his effort to get the school district consolidation plan on a referendum
But just why did Regular Reader think that this editor, on the other hand, would have been shown the
particular voucher in question? Because Ethan Smith in Harrisburg ended up never producing
documentation that his state House Democratic Campaign Committee requested and paid for
nominating petition copies of Mahoney's two Republican challengers in last year's primary election?
No, because as Regular Reader pointed out, this editor here rather liked parts of the school district
consolidation notion -- i.e., except for concern that consolidating all districts' cafeteria supplies might
result in corruption, kickbacks or more private citizens or businesses abusing school discounts -- and
because this editor believed that the HDCC at least paid for the preparation of the ballot challenges.
Regular Reader, it should also be pointed out, is a staunch Mahoney supporter. He believes, whole
heartedly, that the particular $5,000 campaign expense paid to a law firm on the same day that the first
ballot challenge was presented in court last February is exactly what Mahoney claims it is -- i.e., a valid,
very different legal expense.
There is no doubt in Regular Reader's mind that the $5,000 campaign expense did not pay for the ballot
challenges to try to boot the Republican challengers from the last primary election ballot.
He's not even one of those supporters who resorts to the "but it's not illegal to pay for a ballot
challenge of an opponent, so why was there a big deal made of this?" stance. We get a lot of that here.
Regular Reader believes implicitly that Mahoney did not lie to the press last winter, when he said he
had nothing to do with the ballot challenges.
And, you know what? Even if someone on 1 of the 9 different Trib computers reading here Friday, from
10:25 AM through 4:48 PM, requested to receive a copy of that $5,000 voucher under election code law,
drew on his or her billionaire boss' resources to take it to court and -- hypothetically speaking -- proved
otherwise, Regular Reader so likely still would not ever believe it.
4 Nov 12