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 responses so far ↓
1 Ross Levin // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:44 pm
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 Reply to Duopoly Central .......... // Mar 15, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Perot, Perot, Nader, Nader, Nader ………..
They ain’t perfect but matched up to Dems and GOP they come off as secular saints ………… Lake
3 Mik Robertson // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Go Oliver!
4 IT industry is divided over wireless chargers | Articles About Laptop Notebooks Online // Mar 16, 2010 at 4:55 pm
[...] New Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial on Use of State Resources in Challenge to Nader 2004 Petition | … [...]
5 Green Party fan // Mar 16, 2010 at 5:47 pm
The Philadelphia Inquirer is cheered and applauded for more fair treatment of the Green Party’s Ralph Nader!!!
Carl Romanilli also…
Thank you..
6 Green Party fan // Mar 16, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Interview with Green Party Presidential Nominee Antanas Mockus
Columbia…
http://www.colombianews.tv/news/31410-interview-green-party-presidential-nominee-antanas-mockus
7 What is Aromatherapy really? // Mar 18, 2010 at 2:05 am
[...] New Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial on Use of State Resources in … [...]
8 What is Aromatherapy really? : Scents Obsession // Mar 18, 2010 at 2:10 am
[...] New Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial on Use of State Resources in … [...]
Leave a Comment