Last week a couple of random conservative blogs predictably made hay about some unpaid traffic tickets and other financial issues on the part of Democratic State Rep. Chris Sinicki (pictured, left), who’s running for reelection to the State Assembly. While I certainly appreciate the concerns of those conservatives who wanted to make a political issue out of Rep. Sinicki’s personal financial difficulties, I’m curious as to why those same individuals/groups have turned a blind eye to the personal financial “issues” of Molly McGartland, Rep. Sinicki’s Republican challenger this year.
You may remember Molly McGartland (pictured, right) from her failed campaign against Rep. Sinicki in 2010. According to her campaign website from 2010, McGartland pledged to, “Spend your money wisely and exercise restraint in spending” if elected. While her campaign website is missing any substantive outline of where McGartland stands on the issues here in 2012 (not surprisingly), it seems reasonable to believe she still wants voters to think she’d spend their money wisely and exercise restraint in spending if they elected her to serve in the Assembly.
However, as I noted in 2010, McGartland may talk about spending money wisely and exercising restraint in spending if elected, but it would certainly appear her own personal finances still aren’t completely in order. Most notably, McGartland has one judgment against her for $720.60 and another for $11,534.43. The most recent judgment against McGartland seems to be related to an unpaid tuition bill from Marquette University, and as I write this it appears both judgments against McGartland are still active, meaning they have not been paid in full.
Ms. McGartland appears to have deep resources (I wonder from where..) since,
as a resident of Dist. 20, I have received multiple mailing from her campaign.
The most recent one (received Friday) has the entire back page high-lighting
the financial difficulties of Chris Sinicki. In fact, the Journal Sentinel article is
partially re-printed with phrases such as “Why does Chris Sinicki think she is above the law,” “Sinicki ..failed to appear in court,” “Judge issued two bench warrants,”
etc. superimposed over the article. To me this shows to what lengths a woman
who presents herself as a Christian in her mailings will go to in order to be elected.
And given your information, it is especially reprehensible.
One look at Molly McGartland’s campaign website makes it clear she’s not interested in running a campaign based on issues. She seems afraid to actually take a public position on any substantive issues, and her negative attacks aren’t the least bit surprising.
After all, when you don’t have any original ideas of your own as a candidate, you need to sling mud in order to win.