Opinion No., (1956)
Court: Oklahoma Attorney General Reports
Number:
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 15, 1956
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: OPINION — AG — ** CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS — RECORDS ** QUESTION: IF A CAMPAIGN IMPLEMENT (SUCH AS A CAMPAIGN SIGN) THAT HAS ONCE BEEN CHARGED AGAINST A CANDIDATE'S ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE IS STOLEN OR DESTROYED THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE CANDIDATE, SHOULD THE AMOUNT SPENT IN REPLACING SAID IMPLEMENT BE CHARGED TO THE CANDIDATE AS A CAMPAIGN EXPENSE — AFFIRMATIVE (REPORTING CAMPAIGN EXPENSES) CITE: 26 Ohio St. 402 [ 26-402 ], 26 Ohio St. 413 [ 26-413 ] [ 26-413 ], 26 Ohio St. 415 [ 26-415 ] (FRED HAN
Summary: OPINION — AG — ** CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS — RECORDS ** QUESTION: IF A CAMPAIGN IMPLEMENT (SUCH AS A CAMPAIGN SIGN) THAT HAS ONCE BEEN CHARGED AGAINST A CANDIDATE'S ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE IS STOLEN OR DESTROYED THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE CANDIDATE, SHOULD THE AMOUNT SPENT IN REPLACING SAID IMPLEMENT BE CHARGED TO THE CANDIDATE AS A CAMPAIGN EXPENSE — AFFIRMATIVE (REPORTING CAMPAIGN EXPENSES) CITE: 26 Ohio St. 402 [ 26-402 ], 26 Ohio St. 413 [ 26-413 ] [ 26-413 ], 26 Ohio St. 415 [ 26-415 ] (FRED HANS..
More
OPINION — AG — ** CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS — RECORDS ** QUESTION: IF A CAMPAIGN IMPLEMENT (SUCH AS A CAMPAIGN SIGN) THAT HAS ONCE BEEN CHARGED AGAINST A CANDIDATE'S ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE IS STOLEN OR DESTROYED THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE CANDIDATE, SHOULD THE AMOUNT SPENT IN REPLACING SAID IMPLEMENT BE CHARGED TO THE CANDIDATE AS A CAMPAIGN EXPENSE ? — AFFIRMATIVE (REPORTING CAMPAIGN EXPENSES) CITE: 26 Ohio St. 402 [26-402], 26 Ohio St. 413 [26-413] [26-413], 26 Ohio St. 415 [26-415] (FRED HANSEN)
Source: CourtListener
