Comments so far on this story:

1. That explains that wrote on January 23, 2008 9:14 PM:
"No wonder he's looking at running for city attorney. He probably had to run for something, or he'd have to return or donate the money - whatever the rules require. It was probably inevitable that he'd run for supervisor, or city attorney, or even superior court judge - that's a heck of alot of money to start out with, and has got to give him an advantage or alot of other candidates."

2. Al Davis wrote on January 23, 2008 10:37 PM:
"You should be able to restrict the transferring of money from different accounts--thats not protected by the First Amendment. Unbelievable. Is Brian part of the Axis of Virtue?"

3. Dukestir Wilkes wrote on January 23, 2008 10:42 PM:
"Since when have any of these council members found a rule they couldn't work around. And to them corruption is not a bad thing, it's a way of life."

4. Cheeky wrote on January 24, 2008 8:38 AM:
"If the expenditure of money is legal, then don't try to twist it into some accusation of corruption. Seems that Aguirre was still collecting money to pay off a campaign debt from 2004 and nobody accused him of corruption, even though he was collecting from his employees and attorneys who had lawsuits against the city. This article is definitely "Scott's spin" designed to stir up suspicion unnecessarily against Maienschein."

5. emessess wrote on January 24, 2008 8:47 AM:
"The whole thing is ridiculous. Money is fungible. Suppose the candidate collected $300,000 and spent $50,000. To which contributor do you attribute the funds spent? The point of reporting contributions is for transparency. The public knows he has the money so why not let him transfer in bulk with a statement appended to his disclosure that these were the contributors in previous campaign(s)"

6. Givemeabreak wrote on January 24, 2008 10:03 AM:
"The most disturbing part of this story is the enormous authority over campaign finance law that Fulhorst and the Ethics Commission have assumed. Who cares what Fulhorst thinks!! What power does Dick Murphy's Ethics Commission have over laws regulated by the state. Equally as disturbing, Maienschein is really thinking about running for city attorney. His legacy is going to be the re-election of Mike Aguirre. Migth want to think long and hard about that one Brian."

7. keenobserver wrote on January 24, 2008 10:09 AM:
"Suppose I gave to Brian in 2004 and I want Mike to be reelected,is it fair for my money to go to Brian for City Atty ? Why doesn't the Ethics Commission vote on this ? They are just window dressing."

8. Honest Abe wrote on January 24, 2008 12:02 PM:
"Did it ever cross Maienschein's mind to return his unused campaign funds to the people who contributed the money, less the cost of postage? What is the interest on $250,000.00 over the last 4 years? The interest on the money should cover the cost of postage, and also help the contributors in this time of need. Any expenses Maienschein incurred during his uncontested re-election could be subtracted from the whole amount then divided by the number of contributors. This is all quite easy and very honest! The money was contributed for the election of an individual to the City Council, not to the position of City Attorney. Is it too much to ask a politician to be honest, show integrity and to take the right and principled course of action in this matter? I think all of us know what the politician will do! Again the laughs on us.Sad"

9. Billy Bob Henry wrote on January 24, 2008 2:50 PM:
"8. Honest Abe wrote on January 24, 2008 1:02 PM: "Did it ever cross Maienschein's mind to return his unused campaign funds to the people who contributed the money, less the cost of postage? What is the interest on $250,000.00 over the last 4 years? ..........at 10%, not compunded, it is $100K. GOOD POINT there Honest Abe, cool handle also, would you consider a run for Mayor or City Clowncil?"

10. Billy Bob Henry wrote on January 24, 2008 2:50 PM:
"8. Honest Abe wrote on January 24, 2008 1:02 PM: "Did it ever cross Maienschein's mind to return his unused campaign funds to the people who contributed the money, less the cost of postage? What is the interest on $250,000.00 over the last 4 years? ..........at 10%, not compunded, it is $100K. GOOD POINT there Honest Abe, cool handle also, would you consider a run for Mayor or City Clowncil?"

11. Tigershark wrote on January 24, 2008 4:08 PM:
"BBH, where are you getting 10% compounded?"

12. Tom S. wrote on January 24, 2008 5:21 PM:
"Stacey Fulhorst chooses when to interpret laws one way, when to another. Depends on who would benefit/lose from an interpretation, and who is her political favorite. She needs an ethics check on herself. She maintains a lot of authority on what goes to the commission for consideration and, more importantly, what doesn't. She's been there long enough and the power trip has gotton to her head - time to move on. Scott, you are on the right track - not about Maienschein - but about her interpretations and favoritism. Do just a little more digging and it won't be hard to connect the dots about her long history of bias."

13. Tom S. wrote on January 24, 2008 5:25 PM:
"And another thing - the City CAN restrict how candidates spend their money after elected. Check out SDMC 27.2920-27.2924. There is a conflict of interpretation here on the "transfer of funds" provision and the "carryover of contributions" which specify contributions to be used for same elective office. Fulhorst chooses that interpretation which favors Maienschein (err, negatively impacts Aguirre) because it's her choice. Fulhorst is also letting Thalheimer get away with using his surplus funds from '04 towards this election (cause she likes him, natch!)."

14. Stacey and the Law wrote on January 24, 2008 8:21 PM:
"In using the term 'an appearance of corruption' Fullhorst is REALLY stretching case law and constitutional law... which is why the legislature actually had to recently pass a law signed by the Gov to reign her in. And which is why now both Republican and Democrat San Diego state legislators are considering serious measures to limit unelected bodies in local government and their regulatory power over political speach."

15. Stacey and the Law wrote on January 24, 2008 8:21 PM:
"In using the term 'an appearance of corruption' Fullhorst is REALLY stretching case law and constitutional law... which is why the legislature actually had to recently pass a law signed by the Gov to reign her in. And which is why now both Republican and Democrat San Diego state legislators are considering serious measures to limit unelected bodies in local government and their regulatory power over political speach."

16. Billy Bob Henry wrote on January 24, 2008 9:26 PM:
"11. Tigershark wrote on January 24, 2008 5:08 PM: "BBH, where are you getting 10% compounded?".... ....It was just an educated guess. I would hope he could get a 10% return. BTW-I said NON compounded, to make the math easy."

17. Tom S. wrote on January 25, 2008 9:10 AM:
"BBH & Tigershark - just FYI, local political accounts typically aren't interest-bearing ones, because of their status with the IRS."

18. tigershark wrote on January 25, 2008 12:35 PM:
"Tom S. That was my thought also and that is why I asked BBH where he came up with his figure."