No Debate For Senate District 21 Candidates

Due to scheduling conflicts and "inordinate delays," there will be no debate held between Rep. Sean Jerguson and Brandon Beach.

CORRECTION: We originally listed Jan. 8 as the date of the second proposed debate. The true date is Jan. 5. We have changed the article to reflect the proper information.

Residents of Senate District 21 who wish to ask questions to the two men running for the right to represent them in Atlanta will be denied this opportunity, as it has been announced that no debate will be held between the two candidates ahead of the Jan. 8, 2013 special election.

Michael Fitzgerald, chairman of the Georgia GOP's Sixth Congressional District, wrote an e-mail to candidates Brandon Beach and Rep. Sean Jerguson informing them that no debate could be held due to, "inordinate delays in commitments, dates and decisions to participate."

In his e-mail to the candidates, Fitzgerald stressed that there should be a balance between demands on candidates' times and the public's right to learn more about the people who will represent them and be paid with public funds.

"Those seeking office should recognize and acknowledge this, and present a willingness to take clear and hard positions on controversial issues in a public forum," Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald told Patch that initially, a debate had been proposed for Jan. 3 and Jerguson had committed to appearing. However, Beach never responded to "multiple inquiries" regarding this date. Fitzgerald said that after 10 days, Beach asked the debate be moved to Jan. 5, but Jerguson never confirmed the new date.

"By far and away, the biggest losers are the constituents of Senate District 21," Fitzgerald wrote in the conclusion of his letter.

The two men are vying for the Senate seat that was abruptly vacated by Chip Rogers earlier this month  to take a job with Georgia Public Broadcasting. Jerguson had to resign from the State House of Representatives to run for the state Senate seat.

Monty Brewster January 08, 2013 at 04:10 AM
Wow. Can't believe the Patch allowed you to post something that intentionally misleads readers. Beach pocketed funds for personal wealth? You mean like Chip Rogers did? From my understanding, the funds were left in the campaign account? Which is definitely not illegal, and a practice that most politicians follow. You may also like to know that Brandon does in fact live in District 21. But now that you've brought up ethics- Sean's contribution report seems a bit funny. Seems the contributors have more of a political representation than local. His expenses didn't reflect much at all. Didn't even have the qualification fee on there. The link I posted below is also very informational. His supporters over on the Republican Women of Cherokee County are also a good reflection of Sean's anger issues. Dan, have you ever run for office? Ever won?
Jim Beam January 08, 2013 at 06:48 AM
Monty, you need to drop your obsession with Chip Rogers. It's unhealthy and he's out of office. The Patch printed my post because it's the truth: Beach kept that campaign money and regardless of your insistence to the contrary, it IS against state campaign law (i.e. it's ILLEGAL), as the Patch's article makes clear. It's interesting that you've no problems with breaking the law, as long as it's your candidate or side doing the law-breaking. You took a similar stance back during your A-1 thrashing by backing the district using taxpaid facilities to back a specific political stance and you clearly want to overlook Beach's law-breaking here. It's OK When You Do It, right Monty? I've never run for office so I've never won an election. But technically, I've never lost one either. Am unsure of the relevancy of my complete lack of political experience to the discussion on the unethical lawbreaking of your candidate Brandon Beach? Why do you always resort to a personal attack or query when cornered? Just answer the question, Monty: Is Brandon Beach merely ignorant of the laws governing the several elections he's lost? Is he just kinda dumb when it comes to reading the fine print? Or is he a smart politician, well-aware of the election laws but just decided he's hang on to $13,000 of the people's money? Which is it, Monty? Not that it matters, as either makes him unfit for office.
Monty Brewster January 08, 2013 at 03:23 PM
From the Transparency and Campaign Finance Act - Under § 21-5-33. Disposition of contributions: (B)(1)(D)For use in future campaigns for only that elective office for which those contributions were received. With respect to contributions held on January 1, 1992, or received thereafter, in the event the candidate, campaign committee, or public officer holding elective office has not designated, prior to receiving contributions to which this Code section is applicable, the office for which campaign contributions are received thereby, those contributions shall be deemed to have been received for the elective office which the candidate held at the time the contributions were received or, if the candidate did not then hold elective office, those contributions shall be deemed to have been received for that elective office for which that person was a candidate most recently following the receipt of such contributions; Now... what were you saying about someone being ignorant of the laws? You're posts are about as true as you saying you've never run for any elected position. You said that Beach pocketed campaign funds for personal use (like Chip Rogers did). That is a straight up LIE. Now you're saying it was the "people's money" when they are campaign contributions. Another misrepresentation of the facts. The only reason I bring up Chip Rogers is because you shielded him like you are now doing for Sean Jerguson.
Monty Brewster January 08, 2013 at 03:34 PM
Since you brought up A1 - funny how you went silent when the emails from the charter school Principals to all staff and families about supporting A1 went public... Kara Martin, one of the loudest voices of the lawsuit against all the School System Superintendents, fell off the map after that too. Wonder why? The loser who ran against Read for School Board Chair said he had copies of emails from Dr. P to CCSD employees. Where are those? He never produced them. You should sell red herrings and straw men. You'd make a fortune.
Jim Beam January 08, 2013 at 05:35 PM
Monty, I wasn't asking if YOU were ignorant of the laws - I was asking if your buddy BigTax BEACH was ignorant. I hope you weren't taught Reading Comprehension in our awesome CCSD schools! Monty - this link was in the Patch article just yesterday - Are you accusing the Patch of misreporting the facts? http://atlantaunfiltered.com/2013/01/05/beach-campaign-kept-unused-donations/ "When Brandon Beach ran for the Senate in 2010, he raised $13,600 to be spent on the general election once he became the Republican nominee. He didn’t make it that far, though, losing a primary runoff by a thin margin. State law requires candidates to refund contributions raised for an election in which they’re not on the ballot. Beach’s campaign kept those donations in his campaign account, using some for expenses and rolling the rest over to his 2012 race. State law may allow some of that money to be reallocated after the fact to cover 2010 primary or runoff expenses, but at least $8,400 could not be redesignated since it came from donors who had reached contribution limits for those races. Beach said he had no idea the money should have been refunded." So...if Beach was as astute of the law as you are, he's guilty of willingly keeping money that he should not have. Else, he's an ignoramus. Those are the absolute, only 2 options available here. Beach himself clearly takes the "I AM STOOPID MY BAD!" excuse above. The guy's a clown.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »