Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Crazy Crap Stacey Campfield's Pay for Can't-Say-Gay Play Scandal
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:59 AM
Oh, lord, people, you can not miss this hilarity. Steve Ross has the in-depth rundown, but here's the gist: Noted Hollywood-type Del Shores wants to debate Stacey Campfield about Campfield's infamous "Can't Say Gay" bill in Campfield's hometown of Knoxville. Shores says Campfield agreed if Shores will pay him $1,000 plus expenses. So, Shores contacted the Tennessee Equality Project to see if they were interested in sponsoring the debate. They declined (and for good reason; you don't want to be giving money to a state senator during session).
But what's interesting is if Campfield has a fee plus expenses to discuss his own bill in his own town (and let me be clear, there's no reason to think this isn't true. The Facebook correspondence is available at Shore's Facebook page, and the spelling and grammar certainly look like Campfield's) — then Campfield may be in violation of the Senate's ethics rules (sorry, PDF):
A Senator shall not accept any gratuity or compensation for performance of his legislative duties other than his official legislative salary and allowances, except that this provision shall not preclude the acceptance by a Senator of any ceremonial award or gift, such as a certificate of appreciation, a plaque or similar award or memento, or the acceptance of personal hospitality in connection with a normal social function. (page 26)
and the rules of the Tennessee Ethics Commission (sorry, another PDF):
A public official should not receive anything of economic value or any compensation besides the official’s regular salary and benefits, other than as required or permitted by law or in the performance of his or her official duties, for any service which is significantly related to the duties, programs, or operations of the public official’s position.
Now, I guess Campfield can argue that he never accepted the $1,000 plus expenses, but it'll be interesting to see what the state Senate does about this. Is it really OK to solicit money as long as no one is stupid enough to give it to you?
After all, it was Campfield who brought up the idea of payment in the first place. From Campfield's correspondence to Shores:
Although it was you that brought up the bible not I, I will happily debate you. I require a $1000.00 retainer fee and all expenses covered. You can do with the rest all you want.
That sure doesn't seem very ethical.
Update: Michael Silence points out that, since Campfield was soliciting a contribution, this might be considered campaign fundraising during session, which wouldn't just be unethical, it would be illegal.
Comments (30)
Showing 1-30 of 30
I'm pretty sure Campfield will say he was joking - which will lead us eventually to a new bit of internet case law.
If a person doesn't suffix a snarky comment with a smiley or winky, is there a reasonable expectation of non-sarcasm? Will we soon have emiticons enmeshed in law?
Stay tuned. :)
like
dislike
Slarti, I invite you to go look at the whole exchange. If he was joking, the joke went on for a long time. But I agree, he'll have some excuse as to why this isn't what it looks like.
The thousand bucks sounds steep, but I'd pay $15 to see Campfield at Chaffin's Barn in a production of "Daddy's Dyin' — Who's Got the Will?"
How about Campfield having a wrassling fundraiser? He can even wear that cute luchador mask. Somebody's gotta be willing to fork up some $$ for a chance to layeth the smacketh downeth on this guy.
Now...Get in the ring, motherfucker!
Thanks for reporting this. I don't think he was joking. I was sent more than one request for the $1000. Here was the last -- Del Shores
Stacey Campfield
Knoxville TN. I will debate you where ever you set up and pay my expences to go to (In advance).
Just let me know.
By the way, I'll be posting about this as it unfolds all day today on my facebook page. It is open and you can see it without liking it... but like it if you want ... Del Shores
http://www.facebook.com/delshoresfanclub
Reading the limitations, I'm not sure being paid while affording a political enemy a chance to denounce one's own stance would fall outside the rules of proper conduct. Campbell could argue that if the guy wants to debate him personally when Campbell himself has nothing to gain from it and the debate isn't required within the purview of his duties, then he ought to be compensated for his time. A big ho-hum on this one.
I keep asking how this big ol' basket of crazy ever got elected senator. And then it occurs to me that my parents probably voted for him.
Skippy: Campbell's legislative duties are to enact and vote on laws, not to debate Shore for Shore's gratification and profit - whether monetary or political - so therefore Campbell is not asking money for legislative favors. It might be a different if there was an election involved, but there's not. In fact, Shore is asking Campbell to use Campbell's time to gratify Shore's needs. Like that's never happened before with the gay community.
Not buying it, gast. He's asking for money to debate his own bill. The only reason he would engage in such a debate would be to convince people to support his bill. That is the very essence of what a legislator does. He debate bills and tries to convince other people to support the ones he favors.
Mr. Gast, so much spinning. You're a man who definately likes him some spin. Do you work for Campfield?
Betsy, dear, how are you? Thank you for the correction. I so need a poof reader.
Skippy: I don't spin. I point out flaws and alternatives. Debating Shores at Shores' request isn't necessarily conducting legislative business no matter how much you want it to be. And asking for money to conduct business that isn't necessarily legislative business...eh. And as I said before, Shores is asking Campfield to use his time to gratify Shores. Big ho-hum.
Reading Gast's many overtly partisan comments over the last few weeks, somehow I don't think Gast would be of the same opinion if Campfield was some loopy Democrat and Shores was, say, James Dobson wanting to debate creationism. I'm fairly sure Gast would be calling for resignations.
Skippy: And you're not partisan? Another thing, you don't need to modify "Democrat" with "loopy." It's understood; no adjective needed.
Please take time to read the entire transcript and additional notes.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=1…
Your senator and tax dollars at work...
rcpeng: Here's one take; If bribery is going on then Del Shores is trying to bribe a Tennessee politician and isn't that a felony? Shores deflects biblical references to the sin of homosexual behavior with other biblical references to sins that are no longer uncommon(?) in society. But Jesus was a Jew preaching scripture and he surely confirmed the sin of homosexuality (and what awaits the practitioners) with his reference to Sodom and Gomorrah in Matthew 10:15. Now, does anyone really think Jesus would change his mind if he were alive today?
Christianity has as much validity as Scientology, witchcraft, or satan worshipping. All are based on a bunch of voodoo, black magic, and superstitious nonsense.
Well, what do you think? Pretty outrageous statement, eh?
If you are offended, what you are experiencing is some of the pain, anger, and outrage felt by the homosexual community when their lifestyle is equated with pedophilia or bestiality.
Of course, homophobic haters hiding behind the Bible will no doubt indignantly claim that their comparisons are justified whereas the other one is not. Just further evidence of the holier-than-thou self-righteousness, prejudice, and hypocrisy of the so-called "religious right".
labman57: It's not anyone's job to make you feel happy and I personally do not care one way or another whether you are or not or about your orientation. It's wrong for people to beat up gays but if you want to be treated like "everbody else" then turn down the freaking flame. That said, I don't think you should be in a position to influence children and I don't think laws should be passed because you're "special." On the other hand, I remember reading an article a few years ago that said a "straight" man has a hard time getting work on Broadway in New York. Gays wouldn't be like that, would they?
>>I keep asking how this big ol' basket of crazy ever got elected senator.<<
Min, do you ask this about the Ford family members who get elected too? Specifically why they elect a drunk like Ophelia? Or is it ok when the crazy package comes with a Dim label?
No, because most of the Fords aren't crazy, Bob. They're greedy, corrupt, and self-indulgent, but they're not crazy.
@min: Pointing a shotgun at a repairman doing his job is crazy...or maybe not for the Fords.
wow...
this stuff here...and here, i had to find out about some bs like this from Comedy Central???...Can you tell me what good any bill like this is going to do...I thought this was a country founded on Free Speech...That should include what is being said in the classroom, to a point...and to be honest, I don't want my children to be blind to any part of society, so when you take that out the classroom, you're making them blind, just like the fight by these Republicans to take Slavery out of textbooks???...
have you noticed the racist and hateful legistlations coming out the republicans mouths???...Why would you want to vote for a republican, unless your racist, sexist, classist and elitests...
People like that are the main reason that the United States is where it is in the world...with a diminished view of the world and a diminishing respect from other countries...
I don't believe its a republican thing - I'm pretty sure I'm more of a republican than democrat (though I officially label myself Social liberal/Fiscal conservative).
Don't try arguing with gast - I've already tried on the 'Don't say gay' thread (http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archive…)
You might not wholly agree with my ideals, because I don't like the idea of passing laws for or against homosexuality - I feel it is an issue not for legislation but more about changing the social convictions of Americans themselves - education defeats ignorance, which defeats prejudice/discrimination, which ultimately leads to acceptance/tolerance.
However I do agree with the idea of introducing a section in a sex ed class to homosexuality, because it can easily be incorporated into the already existing curriculum of human interaction on an intimate level. They should understand it is different from intimacy between a man and a woman in physical terms, but that it ultimately means the same thing metaphysically regardless of partner (i.e. love). But parents will teach their kids what they want, and a child is more likely to believe in their parents than a school teacher. So if the anti-homosexual population itself is not accepting or tolerating homosexuality, a law concerning a subject in school is not the starting place for a moral refurbishing to begin.
