Report Inappropriate Comments

Thanks for the research, Scal. I have not been able to locate the article myself, so I'll defer to your sleuthing abilities.

Cat: You are correct, Mayor Fung did not pay rent on his campaign office. The situation is somewhat different with the make-believe mayor, because he changed the purpose of his former campaign office to a business office. As a result, he has no legal requirement to report the rent that he may [or may not] be paying, as he did when it was a campaign office.

For all of 2017 the only expenditure reported by the make-believe mayor was $44 for new checks in the 4th quarter -- after he wrongly wrote a business check to pay for the political ad in the Pennysaver, which would have been illegal under state law. [Companies are prohibited from making direct contributions or making expenditures on behalf of a campaign.]

As you may recall, the Beacon reported that it returned that potentially illegal check, meaning that it gave the make-believe mayor, in effect, a campaign contribution by running the ad for free until he covered the expense with an actual campaign check weeks later in January, 2018.

What stands out about these situations with the make-believe mayor -- tax delinquencies, misuse of a business check for campaign purposes, shifting the entity that rents the office for his campaign, getting a neighbor to create a new LLC to pay his water and sewer bills, failing to report his receipt of a free campaign ad, and on and on -- is that they all have been proven with minimal online research, and combine to portray a candidate who thinks he can get away with fooling voters.

As you have seen in the prior comments -- and so many other articles on this website -- he is not getting away with it.

None of his complaints or conspiracy theories provide explanations for the logical conclusions that are drawn from the available facts, and they will not change the inevitable and humiliating rejection that honest, taxpaying voters are going to deliver to his candidacy.