In any political campaign, potential disappointment is an understood part of the process. Here, in Damascus, at the last minute, unexpected disappointment came in the form of a campaign postcard promotion for Joe Canfield that was circulated by an un-named contributor.

This type of promotion, in the form of a large postcard (stating at the bottom, “this ad did not originate with the candidate, nor was it paid for by him”) is in specific violation of section 1638 of campaign law. Campaign publications are required to state their source. The contributor should have done some homework before taking an action that could backfire on the candidate it is supposed to be helping.

Personally, as the chairperson of the Dolores Keesler campaign, I feel that this breach of political law shouldn’t be swept under the carpet, but the perpetrator should be taken to task for hiding under the cloak of anonymity and putting words in the mouth of the candidate. If s/he wanted to work on behalf of the candidate, s/he should do so openly and work within the rules of the process. The community should know who is speaking. Is s/he sitting at Joe’s elbow in the supervisor’s chair and helping him make decisions? This is not about the disappointment of losing, but rather about the attitude of going around the rules. This is an attitude that I don’t want to be operating procedure in the township supervisor’s office. If we are “known by the company we keep,” what does this kind of support say about Joe’s judgment? I like to think that people who step up to serve in public office do so with a sense of responsibility and intend to fulfill their office with integrity. This certainly doesn’t start off on the right foot.

Hester Greene

Damascus, PA