Caroline man tries, fails to smear Albert Pollard.

From The Free Lance-Star: Pollard should be more experienced than this!:

Pollard should be more experienced than this!

Many of us have noticed that large “Pollard” signs have suddenly appeared around the district.

On closer inspection, it appears that these signs have been recycled from the previous state Senate campaign, with the lower portion cut off.

There is nothing wrong with that. The problem is that in cutting off the bottom, those who posted the signs have also eliminated the mandatory authorization line, which must be part of any political advertising.

In Title 24.2 of the Code of Virginia, Chapter 9.5 includes instructions for including the statement “Paid for by [Name of candidate or campaign committee]” on campaign materials.

Those instructions also state that “any disclosure required by this section shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner.” Under 24.2-955.3 of the code, certain penalties are prescribed for violation of these laws.

These signs have begun to appear throughout the district. Just curious: How can someone with such vast experience in government service have overlooked such a simple requirement?

Jeff Gerau


Amazing job there getting it wrong.

From § 24.2-955:

The disclosure requirements of this chapter apply to any sponsor of an advertisement in the print media or on radio or television the cost or value of which constitutes an expenditure or contribution required to be disclosed under Chapter 9.3 (§ 24.2-945 et seq.) except that the disclosure requirements of this chapter do not apply to (i) an individual who makes independent expenditures aggregating less than $1,000 in an election cycle for a candidate or (ii) an individual who incurs expenses only with respect to a referendum.

From § 24.2-955.1:

As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning:

“Advertisement” means any message appearing in the print media, on television, or on radio that constitutes a contribution or expenditure under Chapter 9.3 (§ 24.2-945 et seq.). “Advertisement” shall not include novelty items authorized by a candidate including, but not limited to, pens, pencils, magnets, and buttons to be attached to wearing apparel.


“Print media” means billboards, cards, newspapers, newspaper inserts, magazines, printed material disseminated through the mail, pamphlets, fliers, bumper stickers, periodicals, website, electronic mail, and outdoor advertising facilities. If a single print media advertisement consists of multiple pages, folds, or faces, the disclosure requirement of this section applies only to one page, fold, or face.

“Radio” means any radio broadcast station that is subject to the provisions of 47 U.S.C. §§ 315 and 317.


“Television” means any television broadcast station, cable television system, wireless-cable multipoint distribution system, satellite company, or telephone company transmitting video programming that is subject to the provisions of 47 U.S.C. §§ 315 and 317.

Nowhere does it say that campaign signs (with the exception of billboards) have to have disclaimers on them. You can, of course, put disclaimers on them if you want but you don’t have to.

No local candidate had disclaimer information on their campaign signs on the side of the road in the last general election.

When Robert Wittman was running for reelection for his 99th House of Delegates seat his signs did not have disclaimers either.

After the general election, when Wittman was running for the Republican nomination for the special election for Virginia’s 1st Congressional District and after he won the nomination: he reused the same signs — ones that didn’t have disclaimers on them.

If this is the best that Lee Anne Washington supporters can come up with, she’s really in trouble…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *