newsobserver.com projects - Hayes ad attacks Kissell's taxes - Comments

Re: The tyranny of "or"

Isaac136 — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:03:18 -0400

I'm trying to decide whether I'd rather be wrong or devious and haven't quite reached a conclusion on that.

The tyranny of "or"

James_Protzman — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:28:07 -0400

Isaac, it would appear that your analysis of the original post is either wrong or really devious. Let's see ... which of those two options seems more likely ...

According to RTB himself, this post wasn't a "real" fact check, but simply the result of RTB sort of keeping an eye on a race of interest, but outside the N&O's coverage area.

My interpretation of RTB's post is that it perpetuates Hayes' deceptive claim. Closing with a paragraph from the Hayes spokesperson that completely misrepresents the issues may have the illusion of "balance," but it in no way rises to the level of fair.

Re: Maybe I'm just sensitive

ryanteaguebeckwith — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:43:31 -0400

I try to keep an eye on the Hayes-Kissell race but it's technically a little out of our coverage area. If the Char-O had written a fact-check as such, I would have posted it.

— RTB

Re: Maybe I'm just sensitive

Isaac136 — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:35:38 -0400

Maybe even thin-skinned. Either it is what RTB said it is or RTB is really devious. Let's see . . . which of those two options seems more likely . . .

Maybe I'm just sensitive

James_Protzman — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:36:22 -0400

but this doesn't seem like your other fact-check posts, basically. A fact-check post would have wrapped with a paragraph with a bold-faced lead-in saying.

Is the ad true? No. Hayes implies that Kissell broke the law and failed to pay taxes he should have paid. That is not true. Hayes also accuses Kissell of doing something his own campaign does, i.e., hire independent contractors.

Re: Hayes ad attacks Kissell's taxes

awbeal — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:32:28 -0400

The Hayes attack is ridiculous. This goes on all the time, especially in the relatively lean campaigns run by challengers (not incumbents). I worked for a congressional campaign once (for a candidate in an open-seat race) and this is how it was done. There is nothing improper about it. It's a private contract between the campaign and a professional paid to do a job. The professionals know what they're getting into.

Re: Didn't you run this story already?

ryanteaguebeckwith — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:34:51 -0400

This is the fact-check on the ad, basically.

— RTB

Didn't you run this story already?

James_Protzman — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:08:32 -0400

I could have sworn I saw this a couple of days ago.

Hayes ad attacks Kissell's taxes

ryanteaguebeckwith — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:21:18 -0400

U.S. Rep. Robin Hayes is questioning Larry Kissell's campaign salaries.

In a new TV ad, the Concord Republican reveals that his Democratic rival hasn't been paying payroll taxes for his campaign workers.

So far in this campaign, Kissell, a Biscoe schoolteacher, has treated all of his employees as independent contractors who pay their own taxes, although field workers he hired this month will be paid as full-time employees whose taxes will be paid by the campaign.

Spokesman Thomas Thacker said resources were so scarce in the 2006 campaign that Kissell never hired any full-time workers.

"I am completely satisfied with the fee I'm paid, and I'm completely satisfied shopping for health care in the private sector, and I thought that was something that Republicans thought was a good thing," he said.

Election law does not address when campaign workers should be treated as full-time employees. While most campaigns, including Hayes', hire independent consultants for advice, many also have regular employees for whom they pay payroll taxes.

"This is the guy who is claiming to be the candidate of the workers, who is supposed to be representing worker rights, yet look at how he treats his workers,” said Hayes' campaign manager Steve Quain. “It's the height of hypocrisy." (Char-O)