Check this press release from Chris Poynter (some capitalization and punctuation would be nice in a press release, Poynter – come on), in which Tom Owen claims Tyler Allen was promised significant input on transportation issues in exchange for his endorsement of Hal Heiner:
Owen said he met with Allen in September just before Allen announced he was endorsing Heiner. The two met for an hour at the McDonald’s at Warnock Avenue and Floyd St. at U of L.
Owen called Allen and arranged the meeting because he heard that Allen was about to announce he was backing Heiner.
“Tyler clearly stated to me that he was promised by the Heiner campaign to have input into transportation issues, if he endorsed Heiner and if Heiner won,” Owen said. “Mr. Heiner, whom I respect, is being a hypocrite. I call on Hal to come clean with the public and with the voters.”
Unfortunately, Tyler Allen didn’t go to Hal Heiner seeking something in exchange for his endorsement and Heiner didn’t go to him making promises in exchange for his endorsement. And I haven’t seen it in writing. I’ve spoken extensively with Lisa Moxley, who had no conversations about promises or input with Heiner. Haven’t spoken to Shannon White, but who cares about her?
The reality here is there is a paper trail between Fischer and Green that outlines something solid in exchange for an endorsement – which is illegal.
Where’s the proof in this instance, beyond what Tom Owen suggests?
Because something tells me Tyler Allen isn’t stupid enough to put anything like that in writing.
UPDATE – LEO Weekly discussed this in September. Owen didn’t have any concerns at that time. Interesting.
ANOTHER UPDATE – The Heiner camp responded:
Greg Fischer’s campaign knows that they are in trouble. Voters are starting to see the true Greg Fischer and he is losing ground. Now, he is dragging Tom Owen into his hole to throw wild accusations with no proof whatsoever. To be perfectly clear – at no point in this race has Hal Heiner offered or promised anything other than a change in the status quo. Tyler, unlike Jackie, endorsed for the right reasons, because he believes Hal Heiner is the only candidate that can bring real change to Louisville.
39 responses so far ↓
1 Futureman // Oct 21, 2010 at 11:56 am
I totally called it. Not proof but Allen insinuated the input part in his endorsement speech which I previously quoted in another comment section. Oh and not putting it in writing is a pretty weak defense.
Moxley and Orange lady did it for the exposure. Allen and the vast majority of all former competitor endorsements you will come across nationwide will have some sort of quid pro quo attached to it.
2 James // Oct 21, 2010 at 11:57 am
Just as I thought. Heiner promised stuff, too. It is called politics
3 jake // Oct 21, 2010 at 11:58 am
Weak? Really?
I’d say having something in writing versus not having it in writing is rather strong.
4 jake // Oct 21, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Additionally, Tyler Allen wasn’t on the ballot at the time. Meaning his vote – dropping out – didn’t carry actual value.
5 Steve Magruder // Oct 21, 2010 at 12:30 pm
I guess Owen is hooked on the C-J stenography that ignored the e-mails released from subsequent reporting.
The Fischer-Green deal appears to be about more than mere “input”. Shame on President Owen for putting out such an uninformed/misinformed position.
(And Futureman just proved his pro-Fischer bias again. No, these are not comparable situations. Not even close.)
6 what? // Oct 21, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Not close? The only differences are Tyler didn’t do it in writing which is NO DEFENSE to a breach in the law and Tyler, instead of being a candidate who could could concede and endorse, is nothing more than a voter, trading his vote/endorsement/whatever for input.
On transportation and landuse issues no less…
7 Steve Magruder // Oct 21, 2010 at 12:48 pm
At this point, not even close. Was Tyler ever promised a role in the administration? Doesn’t appear so.
And then you have Heiner immediately responding with all their communications, proving they are better with transparency.
8 what? // Oct 21, 2010 at 12:59 pm
“Was Tyler ever promised a role in the administration? ” If by role you mean input like Green/Fischer then of course he was. It happened at the endorsement. It’s why Tyler (a one plank candidate, much like Green) did it.
Come on gang. I’ve hit Fischer hard at times concerning transparency and other issues. Tranparency has nothing to do currently over whether there was a law broken. I’ m just saying that the Heiner camp has opened a can of worms concerning candidates endorsing. One that they appear to have breached themselves according to their interpretation of the law..
9 jake // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:00 pm
There’s a ton of difference.
Tyler Allen wasn’t on the ballot. No where near as valuable.
10 jake // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:07 pm
And, no, it’s not as simple as you’re dumbing it down to be. This isn’t about a simple endorsement. This is about offering, asking and getting something in exchange for withdrawing from a race – pulling your name from consideration of votes getting counted – and getting something you want.
And the big part of this scenario is that Jackie Green qualified what he was saying. He said “if he gets lucky” – as in if he wins election. Meaning he knew this was conditional on a win.
Tyler Allen offered his endorsement as a non-candidate win or lose. It wasn’t conditional.
11 what? // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:08 pm
I think that makes Tyler’s/Heiner’s breach even worse. The law makes the distinction between voters and candidates. In Tyler/Heiner’s case that is exactly what we have. A voter trading his endorsement/support/whatever for input. And the law makes no distinction between things of lesser value..
12 Steve Magruder // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Sometimes I think people strain to not see what’s in front of their face.
Not. even. close.
13 blowin' in the wind // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Is there anybody in this town with a sense of ethics and integrity? I cannot believe the (il)l0gic being displayed here. Given the educational level of Greg Fischer’s supporters, you would think that at least one of them remebers something from ethics and logic classes. (Assuming they were paying attention, of course.) And what is Tom Owen playing at?
14 what? // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Not straining at all. Just reading state law and applying it to both camps. If endorsing with conditions is illegal, then both candidates did it. Straw man issues concerning the breach actually being in writing, or the value of the endorsement to be of varying degrees, or transparency issues, really have nothing to do with the election law.
15 jake // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:18 pm
If something of value was promised, it wouldn’t be good. Tyler wasn’t on the ballot. So what was the quid pro quo?
The point here is that there are emails – and a former staffer – that say something illegal occurred in Fischer-Green Land.
We have a timeline and chain of communication that show when this deal was cut and when the action took place.
16 what? // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:23 pm
I’m not disputing that Jake.
And under sworn testimony I would say we could find the deal with Tyler/Heiner, the timeline, etc.
Can someone anwer this simple question? If a candidate drops out and endorses with conditions is this illegal?
17 jake // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:26 pm
If those conditions are promised to the person dropping out are of value… as in you get a job (Jackie admits he was on the short list), you get to pick who gets the job, you get to write the policy and determine how the office is structured (both occurred – in writing) – then that seems to be in violation of the law.
Like when Jonathan Miller was promised a job in exchange for dropping out and endorsing Steve Beshear in 2007. But the Lunsford-Stumbo people were too afraid to take a risk.
18 Steve Magruder // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:27 pm
what? – Yes you are straining.
We are not talking about mere “endorsing with conditions”. All endorsements naturally come with some kind of conditions.
Also, whether there’s evidence or value in the exchange is no “straw man” – on the contrary, they are obviously key to proving a quid pro quo case.
To claim equivalence in these cases is spinning, and violent spinning at that.
19 curtis morrison // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:32 pm
As the one person that has been “on staff” of both campaigns (albeit volunteer for Jackie), let’s make a distinction:
Jackie emailed his staff:
“The (Fischer Campaign) also raised the issue of our team playing a role inside gov. — should Greg get lucky. ;)”
Tyler didn’t. And that’s because Tyler understands, like most thinking people, that elections are about selecting the best candidate, it’s not a friggin job fair.
20 Futureman // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Steve- Jake doesn’t even have a Heiner category up so if you want bias look there.
I’m no fan of Fischer, I am just amazed that something that exchanging input for an endorsement is being blown out of proportion here. Next you’ll want to give out tickets at the Indy 500.
Personally, I think Heiner has better stands on several issues to include his eventual move on the ORBP and wanting to make local government work better. I can’t get past his dog whistle stance on JCPS bussing. Louisville is a de facto segregated city. Green was right on the remedy of encouraging affordable housing throughout. In any case ending the bussing then doing some hand waving about neighborhood schools leaves you with a “separate but equal” school system. I am hopeful that this is a case where the Heiner camp just hasn’t thought through the implications of his proposal but I just can’t vote for someone who will give 21st century Louisville another taste of Jim Crow accidentally or not.
21 what? // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Get a job…yes, that crosses the line, however I have a hard time finding value (as defined by input) here for Green/Fischer and not Tyler/Heiner. Your point is that varying degrees of input make one ok and the other a felony. The law makes no distinction…
22 jake // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:36 pm
I didn’t create these categories, but how, exactly, is that biased?
As I’ve repeated stated on Page One – I don’t typically create a category for someone until they’re elected to higher office or are part of the game on a grand scale for more than a year. Like Rand Paul got a category on P1 when he won a statewide election and became the darling of the teabaggers.
If Hal wins this race, he’ll get a category.
Does this mean I’m biased against the military because I talk about it often and there’s no category for it?
23 Futureman // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Because you hit Fischer on a number of things (I won’t say it isn’t deserved) and you gave Heiner a bye on the JCPS issue. Your Heiner posts tend to just consist of, “Hey check out this new ad.” I’m not for Faux News false equivalency BS but you’ve given the guy a total pass. I’m not calling for you to come up with a one to one post criteria, just call him out when it’s deserved. I think JCPS is deserved for the reasons above.
24 jake // Oct 21, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Really? I’ve given him a total pass?
He’s pretty great on most issues. But on equality and the gays? I’ve been giving the man non-stop shit here, in the comments, on Page One, on Twitter, on Facebook, in talking to Joe Burgan, in yelling at the RPK.
I’m with him on the JCPS issue. There needs to be real change. Real compromise. Not just want JCTA wants. And it’s disingenuous to suggest he’s trying to segregate the community.
25 Jeff Gillenwater // Oct 21, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Suggesting that a student, regardless of race, attending a school in their own neighborhood is the equivalent of governmentally enforced segregation, during which students, based purely on race, were very often not allowed to attend their neighborhood school is stretching it really, really thin.
26 blowin' in the wind // Oct 21, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Thin to the point of breaking…The schools issue must be addressed by the mayor, if he is going to be a leader. You certainly can’t leave it in the hands of a board so weak they are afraid to do anything about an incompetent and unethical superintendent.
27 The Highlander // Oct 21, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Boy is blowin’ right again. We have an incompetent and unethical superintendent AND the board itself (paid $40 per meeting) is faaaarrrr to inconsequential to do anything about it — and the CJ’s in bed with the Super. So that leaves the Mayor.
28 Mark Stanton // Oct 21, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Allen actually had more to offer than Green. He may no longer have been on the ballot but he still has more supporters than Green. And without Allen’s endorsement many of his supporters would naturally lean towards the Democratic candidate.
At this point all you have in writing are Green’s version of events, and if you look at the lack of professionalism in Green’s campaign (so often pointed out on this page) you can’t say much with any certainty.
29 jake // Oct 21, 2010 at 3:46 pm
Again, Allen could not take votes away from Hal Heiner because he was, as you said, not on the ballot.
Typically, I think you could say Democratic supporters would lean toward the candidate. Unfortunately for Fischer in this instance, progressives and Democrats were already leaning away from him and toward Heiner because of his bridges stance, etc.
I think we most certainly can say that Green’s lack of professionalism (same for Fischer) adds to this. And it would suggest that neither takes the law or appearance of impropriety seriously.
30 Futureman // Oct 21, 2010 at 4:02 pm
The current assignment plan is less than ideal but Heiner’s plan will ghettoize schools. Heiner would have been better off just saying the plan sucks and that as mayor he’ll work to eliminate long rides or words to that effect.
Below is a link to a graphic that shows the racial distribution in Louisville
http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/walkingsf/5011003858/
That is where the problem is not some claptrap about neighborhood and charter schools.
31 jake // Oct 21, 2010 at 4:05 pm
“Ghettoize”?? As in too black?
Those data are several years old, fyi, so the minority concentrations are much stronger today.
32 jake // Oct 21, 2010 at 4:06 pm
Pro-tip: Wanna discuss busing? Do it on an appropriate post.
33 James // Oct 21, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Why doesn’t Hal just put all this to rest by saying that, if elected, he will never hire Allen, Moxley and orange whatshername
34 Steve Magruder // Oct 21, 2010 at 4:43 pm
James, when will Fischer put the question of illegality of his and Green’s actions to rest by announcing his cooperation with an investigation? There’s no evidence Heiner did anything wrong.
35 James // Oct 21, 2010 at 6:58 pm
I watched Tom Owen on WHAS tonight. He looked pretty darn credible
36 jake // Oct 21, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Again, where’s the quid pro quo?
Where’s the tangible thing Allen gave up in his endorsement, which wasn’t conditional? You’ll note that Owen didn’t say the endorsement was conditional. Because he knows better.
37 BT // Oct 22, 2010 at 1:48 am
Hello?
No one is asking what Owen got for this.
38 jake // Oct 22, 2010 at 7:24 am
What he gets is to be mayor should the new mayor’s candidacy be nullified post-inauguration and pre-new council president.
And I think that is significant.
39 Steve Magruder // Oct 22, 2010 at 7:11 pm
I’ve been thinking about this more today.
I used to think Tom Owen had unquestionable integrity.
This episode has severely shaken that view.
If he doesn’t back down from this naked partisanship, he will be causing political problems for himself that perhaps he can’t envision at this point. I hope he reads through the whole of the evidence, and recants.
Leave a Comment