Comments so far on this story:

1. Steve K wrote on January 24, 2008 11:13 PM:
"If only money could talk! $250,000 left over--that's a lot of 250.00 maximum contributions."

2. Bruce wrote on January 24, 2008 11:37 PM:
"Footnote 2 of the Attorney General's opinion raises an obvious question, i.e., doesn't the City currently have a constitutional ban in place that governs this situation? That is, if the funds to be transferred to a new City Attorney race committee were raised within the 12-month period prior to lawfully commencing the City Attorney race, then the funds can be transferred. However, to the extent that funds were raised more than twelve months prior to lawfully commencing the City Attorney race, those funds may not be transferred. I haven't read the precedent cited in footnote 2, but this distinction seems narrowly drawn and reasonable."

3. Ian Trowbridge wrote on January 25, 2008 3:13 AM:
"I happen to think that Stacy Fulhorst is an extremely competent and fair executive director of the City of San Diego Ethics Commission. I suspect she gave her opinion off the record and frankly I will not be talking to Scott about any sensitive matter in the future. Of course this is an issue for the Ethics Commission and if Goldsmith doesn't like their decision he can cry all the way to the FPPC. I would prefer he put his energy into helping us understand why he is qualified to be City Attorney. Brian clearly is not."

4. Tom S. wrote on January 25, 2008 9:09 AM:
"Ian, Scott did a good explainer of when something is "off the record" with the John McCann "he cooked the books" story a few weeks back. Stacey most certainly was giving conjecture knowingly appropriate for publication. I hope you do divulge sensitive matters to Scott in the future.. who else in local media will investigate, fully research and expose wrongdoing?"

5. Disharmony wrote on January 25, 2008 9:12 AM:
"So Goldsmith is supposed to come in to City Hall and provide the stability and professionalism that Aguirre lacked? Ha! So much for the decorum of an impartial judge! The campaign hasn't even started and this guy has already proven himself a loose cannon. It's not as if the Republican Party, Lincoln Club and the rest of the cronies found on DeMaio's fundraising records aren't going to pour a fortune into Goldsmith's coffers! People gave to Brian in 2004 because they knew he was an honorable man who brought calm and clarity to his constituents during the fires. Those are the same people who will do the right thing and stand up for Brian against these attacks in the City Attorney's race. Goldsmith is just another carpetbagger like DeMaio."

6. Rick wrote on January 25, 2008 9:43 AM:
"Maienschein is one of the 5 who put us in the situation we are currently attempting to deal with. The Costs he approved and the further investigation Costs he spproved cost the SD taxpayers millions. His lack of participation, lack of attendence, and lack of real interest make him not reliable enough to hold any elected office. He is a classic example of all lawyer jokes and his tenure on the council has been lack luster at best."

7. Norman wrote on January 25, 2008 10:03 AM:
"Good points Ian! Mr. Goldsmith instead of being a town cryer should be at our city council meetings giving HIS opinion on issues so the people of San Diego can see what he's all about. If he's as good as he says he is..it will show on TV and the world will spread. He should stop trying to prohibit or discourage other candidates from running and just concentrate on who he is and what he stands for! If he can't do that, FORGETTA ABOUT HIM!"

8. Jan Goldsmith wrote on January 25, 2008 11:31 AM:
"Bruce, you are right about fn.2. Here's an excerpt from that case: "The State argues that the limits are justified because they prevent candidates who are unopposed, or opposed by weak candidates, from taking contributions in one campaign to avoid limits in the next one. This rationale is plausible. Contribution limits fight corruption, and therefore relate to a compelling state interest. Contribution limits for future campaigns of presently unopposed candidates would effectively double without this provision. .... We hold that the State's interest in preventing avoidance of valid contribution limits by use of carry-forwards is both compelling and served by this restriction." Councilman Maienschein raised $250,000 when he was unopposed 4 years ago, well beyond the 12 month limit imposed on all city att'y candidates."

9. Hey, Jan and Brian . . . wrote on January 25, 2008 6:27 PM:
"If you are elected, what will be your approach to the role of city attorney? Will you commit to providing legal advice to the city's elected representives, or will you pursue policy objectives, based upn whatever YOU determine the people of the city want? In other words, will you be closer to John Witt or to Mike Aguirre(Gwinn doesn't count - he fell, and failed, between these two). I attended a union event the other night, and one of you told the union members you would be their advocate in negotiations with the city. Would you be, really? You are reading these comments, so please take the time to answer."

10. Denise wrote on January 26, 2008 2:47 PM:
"Having attended law school with Jan decades ago, where he excelled with top scholastic honors ( in a class of very smart and competitive people), my money is 100% with him. Ms. Fulhorst may wish to recheck her P's and A's."

11. Hey, Jan and Brian wrote on January 27, 2008 7:25 PM:
"We're waiting for your answer."

12. Hey, Jan and Brian wrote on January 28, 2008 7:25 PM:
"Your silence answers my question. Thank you."

13. Ryan wrote on February 2, 2008 12:16 PM:
"DisHarmony, I think the problem with the current City Attorney is a little too much focus on City Hall and not enough focus on the law. It's the city council's job to get things done. It's the city attorney's job to make sure everyone follows the rules."