Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 3 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
Campaign
Finances
Continued
To the Editor: ^
Here we go again. It is hard to believe that someone can misstate or misunderstand facts as badly as Mr. Frazier has in describing the campaign financial reporting mistakes of the Katzen campaign.
Mr. Frazier asserts that there was no real probe of filing errors, and that anyway, these errors were the result of Mr. Katzen’s inattention because of his flood relief efforts. Sorry' folks, but it just isn’t so. Here are the real (and boring) facts.
The Katzen campaign made four financial transfers of $250 each from the 1995 campaign to pay a specific debtor in the 1993 campaign. The first took place on Jan. 1, and was listed in the Jan. 15, 1995, State Board of Elections filing. The Third took place on May 1, the fourth took place on June 1, and both were reported in the June 15 SBE filing. It is obvious that these violations of election law took place before the June 27 flood. To argue, as Mr. Frazier has, that these violations were due to the inattention
91.6%