back to all videos | back to main

What You're Saying

Posted by: Al Miles, Pinellas Park | August 05, 2009
I would say some one is very scared of your excellent exposure and wants to grind it to a halt. Any person who begins to catch the public eye particularily with good programs always stirs up some controversy. I would say you have some very worried competitors out there. I firmly believe you are entitled by federal law to campaign in this manner. Florida does have some catching up to do on several issues.

Posted by: Barney, Downtoown | August 04, 2009
You photograped well. In two minutes they spelled your name correctly EIGHT times. a winner!!

Posted by: Dian Dudley, child's park | August 04, 2009
This "move" to stop your campaigning using computers is WRONG. I haven't made up my mind who I'm voting for yet, but anyone thwarting your right to approach constituents and/or possible constituents via any public means you are scaring some competitors. Just as the Founders didn't foresee much of our advances (guns and the internet to name two) in technology, doesn't mean that We, the People of the 21st century sould stay in the dark. fight on!


Posted by: Jim Jackson, old southeast | August 04, 2009
Could Florida be any more behind when it comes to technology? Local leaders wonder why high tech firms won't relocate here. Pretty obvious. Pay the fine move on.

Posted by: Rich Gonlin, Tierra Verde | August 04, 2009
Scott, You are certainly on the leading edge of this issue. Sounds like we need to have the laws keep up with the technology. I like the innovative ideas you bring to all of the campaign issues in St. Pete.

Posted by: Nancy Burgess, Snell Isle | August 04, 2009
I hope that the Wagman campaign doesn't make a big public arguement on the First Ammendment rights and the internet. It will open up a huge whole for other political activist. This could come around and hurt the American people in the long run. It is my hope that the Wagman campaign would step to a private arena to discuss the future of campaign's and google so that others won't come out of the woodwork and claim the same for their extreme campaigns of political speech. It is my understanding th

Posted by: H-Boy, Coquina key | August 04, 2009
I think that those who filed this complaint must be attempting to restrain your ability to talk to voters through a technicality. I don't appreciate their jealousy of your ability to effeciantly get your message out.

Posted by: tracey locke, Old NE | August 04, 2009
Thanks for supporting the children at Wildwood last night. I'm glad to support a candidate who is utilizing the latest technology and running such an efficient campaign. Its not everyday, your city's mayoral race is highlighted in the Wall Street Journal. Hope you set a precedent here.

Posted by: Kyle Brinkman, riviera bay | August 04, 2009
Florida law is out of touch here. Social networking is not just free speach but free association. Social networks setup associations between people who know each other. This is not a dinnertime phone solicitor.

Posted by: Claudette Siar | August 04, 2009
Federal election law appears to have already settled the issue. We are in a 21st century technological era and laws must change to meet the times. People who click on a link they did not want are off it so fast that the advertiser has minimum gain. I would calculate the possible exposure in fines and see if it is burdensome to your campaign. If so, pay the fine, remove the click link, go forth with your campaign and fight to make State laws recognize the Federal election laws along the way.