Anonymous Campaign Pieces against Jack Franks Critics Going Back to 2010 – Part 1

The Illinois Integrity Fund was not the first fake Political Action Committee to slither out of the depths Democratic Party slime in McHenry County.

Here are three predecessors going all the way back to the 2010 election when John O’Neill was brave enough to take on State Representative Jack Franks.

From the article:

Now let’s move on to the mailing sent by a secret group of Jack Franks supporters.  A hatchet job on Franks’ homeschooling Republican challenger, John O’Neill.

This smear piece hit mail boxes Thursday.  I don’t know about you, but the quotes from the two Heralds appear to be from letters to the editor from Jack Franks supporters. 

The outfit whose name is at the bottom of the post card is “McHenry County Committee for Qualified Candidates (MCQC)”

I checked with both the Illinois State Board of Elections and the McHenry County Clerk and no such entity has filed as a political action committee.


Anonymous Campaign Pieces against Jack Franks Critics Going Back to 2010 – Part 1 — 13 Comments

  1. This is really exciting!!! How many parts will there be?
    I can’t wait.

  2. ….says the old man who posts retarded doggerel written by anonymous prescription opioid junkies who are critics of Jack.

    Pot, kettle, yadayadayada.

  3. Don’t kid yourselves; “McHenry County Committee for Qualified Candidates (MCQC)” may have morphed into the Illinois Integrity Fund but that doesn’t mean that exposure will convince Franks to abandon this tact.

    You can bet your bottom dollar IIF will morph into some other monster.

    With this Swamp Lizard Hydra, two more heads will always grow back.

  4. going way back at about that time bracket ..

    A group appeared calling itself “The Responsible Republican taxpayers of McHenry County” or words to that effect…

    the sign was asking for a Referendum to be placed on the up coming ballot to have the county board chair be an elected position…

    at that time It seemed that I was the only one concerned..

    the election board said there was nothing they could do…

    had I the foresight I would have saved a sign and tracked down the printer…

  5. Dentbla — you know this won’t end very pretty for your Master.

  6. This was a cheaper mailer that only went to the State Rep district.

    That district may be large geographically, but it only has about 1/3rd of the households in the county.

    So it could have been done for less than the reporting limit to the State Board of Elections.

    The 2018 mailers, on the other hand, included at least one county wide mailer and mailers to 3 county board districts, which were done on more expensive color stock.

    The cost for those probably was approximately what Franks paid to the two consultants one month later.

    You can get away with the shadow group if you can keep the costs under $5K.

    If you go over that and don’t open a committee with them, that is where the trouble starts.

    I don’t know if the State Board can go after people who flat out don’t open committees when they are supposed to or what the penalties can be.

    If they can’t, then somebody could spend unlimited amounts of money and just never register a committee, which doesn’t make sense.

    If anyone can shed light on that, it would be good.

  7. Who was the printer?

    Please take a photo of the sign and email it to me.

  8. A couple of points:

    1 – as someone above mentioned, you only need to file if you raise/spend more than $5k. It’s pretty easy to stay under that on a cheap mailing in a state rep race.

    2 – the Tirio case has never actually been about anonymous mailers. It’s been about defamation. And the standar for defamation in political mail is an extremely difficult one to meet.

  9. There is now a court ruling that the mailers are defamatory per se.

    The standard has been met.

  10. Susan – is that true?

    I honestly don’t know the answer.

    What court ruling has said that the mailers were defamation?

    Can you provide the ruling?

    The defamation suit hasn’t even been filed yet.

  11. In order for ruling for discovery of iif john does identities, the mailers had to meet the standard of being defamatory per se.

  12. I think depicting someone as a criminal is defamation per se….

    Just “se in”.

Leave a Reply

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