Joel Connelly at seattlepi.com tells of the state Republican Party’s move to do background checks on candidates for statewide or congressional office.
I don’t think it harms my Olympian objectivity to say, “Good move.”
The party has the luxury of hiring someone to do the job for them. It takes much more time than you might realize to do the necessary search on everyone. We have to do these checks on our own. Sadly, my years here at the Kitsap Sun make it clear that it’s a necessary activity.
I’ll leave names out, for now, but past background checks have revealed someone writing bad checks and another candidate whose resume and court testimony appeared to be a complete fabrication. In the latter case it was a writer for a now defunct blog site that made the first discovery. In most cases, we don’t find anything of note, which is the good news. The year the bad check writer ran, online state records showed the opponent might have filed bankruptcy. I drove to Seattle to see the actual filing and verified it was someone with the same name as the candidate.
Filing week begins Monday. So does the vetting process.
I’m not sure that passing bad checks and filing bankruptcy fall into the same pit.
Filing bankruptcy is a legal activity. A judge decides the outcome. Trying to pass a bad check is a crime.
Now, if the elected position is one that manages finances, I would be leery of a candidate with a recent bankruptcy.
On with the vetting.
Anyone who can’t get a security clearance shouldn’t be a public official responsible for our fiscal condition.
Further, all candidates and officials should have random drug testing!
Cean,
I agree that the two actions are not equal. They should probably both be mentioned in a news story, though.
Steven Gardner
Kitsap Caucus blog jefaso
Steve,
Absolutely. The voters want to know everything possible about the candidates. I appreciate the vetting.