Do Scott Wagman's Google ads violate election law?

Scott Wagman is facing a possible Florida Elections Commission investigation over advertisements the first time candidate is running on Google.

Wagman received notice Thursday that the elections commission received a complaint that his Google ads violate state election law. The FEC found the complaint legally sufficient to proceed.

Under state rules, Wagman can either pay a fine and stop the investigation (it's kind of like pleading no contest) or contest the complaint.

Wagman campaign manager Mitch Kates said Friday the campaign had not yet decided how to proceed. Kates says the Google ads are common to several political candidates in Florida, and there is no precedence that the ads violate election law.

What the Bay Buzz has waited to the fifth paragraph to tell you is that the complaint was launched by fired Jamie Bennett campaign manager Peter Schorsch. Schorsch, himself, still owes the state more than $67,000 for 40 election law violations in 2005.

Schorsch, "certainly seems to be on a mission to destroy everybody in his wake," Kates said Friday. "Quite honestly, this is not on the top of my list of things to do. People are voting right now and we are talking to people that are voting. This kind of stuff can be distracting if you let it be."

To see what Schorsch is talking about, type "Deveron Gibbons" into Google. On the right hand side, you should see an advertisement for Wagman's campaign. The ad does not include a political disclaimer, though it links to Wagman's web site, which does include the disclaimer.

Aaron Sharockman, Times Staff Writer
.

Comments

[Why can't Wagman do anything right?]

For every step forward for Scott, he takes two steps back. I don't care if it's Schorsch complaining or not, Wagman keeps violating the rules.

[uh huh]

"...Schorsch, himself, still owes the state more than $67,000 for 40 election law violations in 2005."

Schorsch really cares about the voters though and wants politicians to do what's right. God bless him.

[saintpetersblog]

It isn't a question if Scott violated the election law, it's a fact. The Assistant General Counsel Gary Holland already sent me an unofficial opinion on the matter before I sent in the complaint.

For the complete story on this issue:

http://saintpetersblog1.blogspot.com/2009/07/are-scott-wagman-ads-on-google.html

[those who can't do, blog]

So I guess they should fine Obama, John McCain, Alex Sink, Dan Gelber, Kendrick Meek... and the list goes on and on. Put the word out, a personal vendetta to waste everyone's time. We're all anxious to see how it plays out I'm sure-- after all, this is far more exciting than voting any day.

[Zen Master]

So unofficial opinions are now facts?

Thats a bad statement for you to make Peter. Considering most people's opinion's of you.. oh Wait.. I mean the facts about you.

[saintpetersblog]

An unofficial opinion is better than just sending in the complaint without getting one first.

Just because Sink and Gelber are doing it doesn't make it right. The FEC's Exec Director said it herself, this is new territory, but that doesn't mean the ads don't need a disclaimer.

The point of contention here is if the ads had not said Vote or Elect, because then it would have been a different matter.

But they did expressly advocate the election of a candidate, and so a disclaimer is needed, no matter how small the ad is.

[honestly?]

Schorsch, quit wasting your own time. Perhaps instead of filing FEC complaints, you should be settling your fines.

Agree with Zen Master.

[...you're not campaigning]

If you're explaining...

[those who can't do, blog]

So Peter did this because he cares about what's right.

http://www.pcsoweb.com/InmateBooking/SubjectResults.aspx?id=1248694

Yep, he sure does.

[uh huh]

If he cares, he should pay back his debt to society (and all those bounced checks at Publix) rather than trying to bring good people down to his level.

[Michelle K from Tampa]

"Schorsch, himself, still owes the state more than $67,000 for 40 election law violations in 2005."

Pot, kettle, black.

[and the cradle will rock]

What about Wagman's copyright infringement using Van Halen songs at the end of his internet videos

[fact]

The amount of space allowed in a Google Search ad is about 68 characters. The disclaimer is 98. You can't even fit a disclaimer in one. This is just silly waste of space-- shame on the Times for feeding the cat.

[saintpetersblog]

Don't worry the Van Halen issue is next...I can only do so much.

Right, there are only 68 words, give or take, but they don't have to be advocacy. He could have just said visit www.scottwagman.com and hed be fine.

[peter schorsch is a scumbad]

.. he once hit on and convinced his bosses 16 year old daughter to live with him. He was way older. She was underage.

[fact]

68 characters. He wouldn't get much by saying visit www... Peter, why don't you just set the record straight. Tell us what's your honest motivation here.

[Blazin]

Schorsch may indeed be a bitter has-been, and perhaps even overtly hypocritical… but it doesn’t change the fact that too many politicians and wannabes blatantly violated not only election, but also city, county, state, fedral, and Constitutional rules/laws/ordinances et al. And the “hey; they did it too!” defense is cowardly rubbish and indicates a low level of integrity.

The more we electorate head toward a level of tolerance with respect to our hopefuls and elected leadership’s acts of deception, corruption, and unethical behavior – the more it will happen, and the more they will push the bar further and further out. These are some of the same politicians and wannabes that will endorse laws of Zero Tolerance on our students in school; the same folks who support handcuffing a 1st-grader having a temper tantrum, or expel a child for having a butter knife in their lunchbox – and also some of the same folks who’ll spend our tax dollars installing cameras at intersections in order to ticket us from the comfort of a cubicle. Forgive me of my sins; but damn you for yours.

Is this the change we hoped for or seek; or merely the constant we deserve as a result of our apathy and assent?

As electors it is our responsibility and duty to hold those accountable who demand accountability from us; to apply zero tolerance to those who apply it to us. And we had better get back there quick, before we find ourselves in the days of our prospective leaders openly and confidently campaigning with the slogan; “Vote for me, for I am indeed evil; but I am the lesser of the two!”

But what do I know; “Mongo only pawn in game of life.”

[saintpetersblog]

The ads cannot "expressly advocate"...just change the ads to something that doesn't expressly advocate.

Don't you all think it's a little sneaky to be buying ads for when someone searches for Kathleen Ford or Bill Foster???

She was 18 years old, I was 25. Big deal.

[whack the GOP]

Looks like a lot of Foster/Gibbons cry babies don't have much to do but whine about getting their butts kicked by Wagman and crew. Again.

Just as well- Foster & Gibbons are deniers of evolution, which means they deny reality like Global Warming and our need to address that in our city. Shallow idiots & greedheads.

Well... enough time wasted here. Back to work for me, unlike the poor blog monkeys who sit around in their skivvies tapping trash onto BayBuzz all day. heh.

[Motivation?]

Peter's motivation is seeing people react to him. Pure and simple.

It's as simple as child's play. If everyone ignored him, he'd eventually give up and do something else.

But it's a train wreck: Horrible to look at; too interesting to look away.

And so the self-perpetuating Schorsch-a-thon will continue through the November election. He can't stop himself. And no regular poster here can stop reacting to him, either.

[voter]

Do Scott Wagman's Google ads violate election law?

Yes.

[.]

12:10… as I stated… put simply; you’re an idiot. And what you whack when you’re in your mom’s basement is none of our damn business.

[.]

Slimy and sneaky during the campaign = slimy and sneaky if in office.

'nuff said

[fact]

Well, I just think it's sad that we'll let a freak and mom's basement living, check bouncing, criminal-- and most of all-- Jerk-- actually have this sort of stage. It's sad and really ridiculous. I think I'm going to start first by calling his mom then I will follow what he can't by boycotting the Bay Buzz. We should also let the Times have it for giving a criminal any sort of credibility.

[Why?]

Why is that Peter is the source with information on Gibbons, on Wagman, etc., why isnt the Times doing its job, rather than writing about KFC?