It's no secret that I review PDC reports during campaigns. In fact, in past years I've received tremendous criticism from the media and a handful of candidates for doing so.
Showing posts with label Clean Campaigns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clean Campaigns. Show all posts
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Heads up Candidates and staff - I'm looking for PDC Violations
I will be looking at Candidate websites and PDC filings for alleged errors and violations.
Remember, I don't discriminate along party lines -- like some of my contemporaries...
Remember, I don't discriminate along party lines -- like some of my contemporaries...
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Concerned about Election Fraud? Here's the skinny on voter Signature Challenges, ID Checks and more
For your consideration, I'm including a series of e-mail that were exchanged between Katie Blinn, Assistant Director of Elections, Office of the Secretary of State and County election staff across the state regarding public disclosure requests, signature challenges and ID checks.
Dear Election Staff,
I have met with both State Parties the past few weeks, and continue to receive lots of questions from them in anticipation of the General. I want to share with you some of what I shared with the Auditors at the WACO conference yesterday.
County Chairs:
I have encourage both State Parties to work through their respective County Chairs as much as possible. I explained to them that the local County Chairs have a better understanding of the procedures in each elections office because they are there every year, not just the Presidential/Gubernatorial elections. Hopefully, the County Chair has built a rapport with your office, and you have built a rapport with each County Chair. Communication will likely be more effective between people who know each other, rather than with “suits from Seattle.” I have also encouraged them to make litigation a last resort, rather than a first resort.
Public Records:
Both parties plan to be submitting many public records requests to our office and your offices. I know that some of these requests are already coming in.
Provisionally Registered Voters:
Both parties are asking many questions about voters who are provisionally registered because they did not clear the ID check during registration. Just a reminder that the applicable WACs are 434-324-045, 434-250-045, 434-253-024, and 434-261-055.
Felons:
I am receiving many questions about felons. In case you receive inquiries, the applicable laws are RCW 29A.08.520 and WAC 434-324-100 and 434-324-106.
Missing or Mismatched Signatures:
I am receiving many questions about how a voter may correct a missing or mismatched signature on the absentee/mail envelope. I fully expect both campaigns to be very geared up for this, contacting voters in counties favorable to their candidate. The applicable statute is RCW 29A.60.165, but please be aware that this statute is ambiguous regarding which signatures actually have to match, so it was clarified a few years ago in WAC 434-261-050.
Voter Registration Challenges:
I am receiving many questions about challenging a person’s voter registration. In case you receive inquiries, the applicable law is RCW 29A.08.810, 29A.08.820, 29A.08.835, and 29A.08.840, and WAC 434-324-115.
Thanks very much!
Katie Blinn
Assistant Director of Elections
Office of the Secretary of State
kblinn@secstate.wa.gov
(360) 902-4168
A second e-mail for your review
Dear County Auditors and Elections Staff,
I continue to receive many questions regarding how a voter may correct a missing or mismatched signature, and whether the political parties may contact such voters. This email discusses state law requirements for providing political parties and others names of voters with missing and nonmatching signatures on the absentee envelope. State law does require the counties to provide this information. How this information is provided is left to each Auditor, but we recommend that the documents you provide for this purpose be documents you are willing to accept for signature verification. Details below.
Public Records:
You may recall that, during the 2004 General Election, the Democratic Party asked King County Elections for the names of provisional voters who had a missing or mismatched signature. Initially, King County did not disclose this list on the theory that disclosure would violate HAVA. The Democratic Party brought a lawsuit in King County Superior Court and Judge Lum ruled that the list of voters was a public record. The Democratic Party then contacted many of those voters to get their signature issue cleared up so the ballot could be counted.
During the 2005 legislative session, the Legislature clarified that records regarding who has a missing or mismatched signature are public documents:
(4) A record must be kept of all ballots with missing and mismatched signatures. The record must contain the date on which the voter was contacted or the notice was mailed, as well as the date on which the voter signed the envelope, a copy of the envelope, a new registration form, or a change-of-name form. That record is a public record under chapter 42.56 RCW and may be disclosed to interested parties on written request. RCW 29A.60.165.
This clarification was simply an extension of the long standing public policy that voter registration records, notices to voters, poll books, etc. are public records. RCW 29A.08.710 – RCW 29A.08.770.
Political Parties:
Following the 2004 Governor’s race, there were many discussions in the elections community and in the Legislature over whether political parties should be allowed to contact voters over signature issues. Many considered the process unbecoming, at best, and a form of harassment, at worst. Others felt that it was a reasonable method to getting voters’ ballots counted. Two issues quickly became evident:
· First, if the information is public, how can a government office release the documents to some requestors but not to others? If it is public, it is public.
· Second, it is difficult to describe in RCW or WAC who can assist a voter and who cannot. A classic example is the elderly voter whose signature doesn’t match because she has aged. Her adult daughter, or a family friend, tries to help her respond to a notice from the County Auditor’s Office. It is difficult to allow for this assistance, but not allow for assistance from others. “Family and friends can assist a voter, but family and friends who are politically active cannot.” “The voter can respond, but third parties cannot assist in that response.” “Third parties cannot deliver the signed affidavit back to the Auditor’s Office, but the U.S. Postal Service can.” “Third parties can deliver ballots to the Auditor’s Office, but cannot deliver affidavits to the Auditor’s Office.” “Persons who are nonpartisan can contact the voter, but persons who are partisan cannot.” This became virtually impossible to describe.
In the end, there is nothing in the law that prohibits the political parties from contacting voters and offering assistance. While some people might believe that this practice “smells bad,” that it will annoy voters, or will confuse voters, it is not prohibited by law.
Letters v. Lists:
I don’t need to tell you that the political parties are requesting these names and planning to contact the voters.
If you decide to give the political parties lists of voters, such as spreadsheets or text files that have been exported from your voter registration system, I assume that you will also give the parties a copy of the form letter sent to those voters. If so, I am assuming that you will then accept a copy of that form letter from a voter who is attempting to correct a missing or mismatched signature.
Likewise, if you decide to give the political parties photocopies of the actual letters sent to voters, I am assuming that you will then accept a photocopy of that letter from a voter.
This is a complicated way of saying: The manner in which you respond to the public records request should correspond with the manner in which you will accept affidavits from voters, because the parties are going to use the format that you provide them.
Attachment:
Finally, I have attached a spreadsheet that was provided to us from one of the parties. I share this only to demonstrate how much the parties are preparing for this “get-the-ballot-counted” campaign, and to demonstrate how much messages can be jumbled. For once, the public record is not ours.
I have provided the applicable WAC below. Please know that I send this reminder email as an effort to reduce the litigation that will likely occur in this election.
Thank you.
Katie Blinn
Assistant Director of Elections
Office of the Secretary of State
kblinn@secstate.wa.gov
(360) 902-4168
WAC 434-261-050
Unsigned oath or mismatched signatures.
(1) If a voter neglects to sign the oath on an absentee or provisional ballot envelope, signs the oath with a mark and fails to have two witnesses attest to the signature, or signs the ballot envelope but the signature on the envelope does not match the signature on the voter registration record, the auditor shall notify the voter by first class mail of the correct procedures for curing the signature. If the ballot is received during the last three business days before the final meeting of the canvassing board, or the voter has been notified by first class mail and has not responded by the last three business days before the final meeting of the canvassing board, the auditor must attempt to notify the voter by telephone using information in the voter registration record.
(2) If the voter neglects to sign the oath on an absentee or provisional ballot envelope, or signs the oath with a mark and fails to have two witnesses attest to the signature, the voter must either:
(a) Appear in person and sign the affidavit no later than the day before certification of the primary or election; or
(b) Sign a copy of the affidavit provided by the auditor, or mark the affidavit in front of two witnesses, and return it to the auditor no later than the day before certification of the primary or election.
(3) If the signature on the oath of an absentee or provisional ballot envelope does not match the signature on the voter registration record, the voter must either:
(a) Appear in person and sign a new registration form no later than the day before certification of the primary or election. The updated signature provided on the new registration form becomes the signature on the voter registration record for the current election and future elections; or
(b) Sign a copy of the affidavit provided by the auditor, and provide a photocopy of a valid government or tribal identification that includes the voter's current signature. The signature on the affidavit must match the signature on the identification, and both of those signatures must match the signature on the ballot envelope. The voter must return the signed affidavit and identification to the auditor no later than the day before certification of the primary or election. The county auditor may also send the voter a new registration form to update the signature on the voter registration record for future elections; or
(c) Sign a copy of the affidavit provided by the auditor in front of two witnesses who attest to the signature. The signature on the affidavit must match the signature on the ballot envelope. The voter must return the signed affidavit to the auditor no later than the day before certification of the primary or election. The county auditor may also send the voter a new registration form to update the signature on the voter registration record for future elections.
(4) If the signature on an absentee or provisional ballot envelope does not match the signature on the registration record because the name is different, the ballot may be counted as long as the handwriting is clearly the same. The auditor shall send the voter a change-of-name form under RCW 29A.08.440 and direct the voter to complete the form. If the signature on an absentee or provisional ballot envelope does not match the signature on the registration record because the voter used initials or a common nickname, the ballot may be counted as long as the surname and handwriting are clearly the same.
(5) A voter may not cure a missing or mismatched signature for purposes of counting the ballot in a recount.
(6) A record must be kept of all ballots with missing and mismatched signatures. The record must contain the date on which the voter was contacted or the notice was mailed, as well as the date on which the voter signed the envelope, a copy of the envelope, a new registration form, or a change-of-name form. That record is a public record under chapter 42.56 RCW and may be disclosed to interested parties on written request.
Dear Election Staff,
I have met with both State Parties the past few weeks, and continue to receive lots of questions from them in anticipation of the General. I want to share with you some of what I shared with the Auditors at the WACO conference yesterday.
County Chairs:
I have encourage both State Parties to work through their respective County Chairs as much as possible. I explained to them that the local County Chairs have a better understanding of the procedures in each elections office because they are there every year, not just the Presidential/Gubernatorial elections. Hopefully, the County Chair has built a rapport with your office, and you have built a rapport with each County Chair. Communication will likely be more effective between people who know each other, rather than with “suits from Seattle.” I have also encouraged them to make litigation a last resort, rather than a first resort.
Public Records:
Both parties plan to be submitting many public records requests to our office and your offices. I know that some of these requests are already coming in.
Provisionally Registered Voters:
Both parties are asking many questions about voters who are provisionally registered because they did not clear the ID check during registration. Just a reminder that the applicable WACs are 434-324-045, 434-250-045, 434-253-024, and 434-261-055.
Felons:
I am receiving many questions about felons. In case you receive inquiries, the applicable laws are RCW 29A.08.520 and WAC 434-324-100 and 434-324-106.
Missing or Mismatched Signatures:
I am receiving many questions about how a voter may correct a missing or mismatched signature on the absentee/mail envelope. I fully expect both campaigns to be very geared up for this, contacting voters in counties favorable to their candidate. The applicable statute is RCW 29A.60.165, but please be aware that this statute is ambiguous regarding which signatures actually have to match, so it was clarified a few years ago in WAC 434-261-050.
Voter Registration Challenges:
I am receiving many questions about challenging a person’s voter registration. In case you receive inquiries, the applicable law is RCW 29A.08.810, 29A.08.820, 29A.08.835, and 29A.08.840, and WAC 434-324-115.
Thanks very much!
Katie Blinn
Assistant Director of Elections
Office of the Secretary of State
kblinn@secstate.wa.gov
(360) 902-4168
A second e-mail for your review
Dear County Auditors and Elections Staff,
I continue to receive many questions regarding how a voter may correct a missing or mismatched signature, and whether the political parties may contact such voters. This email discusses state law requirements for providing political parties and others names of voters with missing and nonmatching signatures on the absentee envelope. State law does require the counties to provide this information. How this information is provided is left to each Auditor, but we recommend that the documents you provide for this purpose be documents you are willing to accept for signature verification. Details below.
Public Records:
You may recall that, during the 2004 General Election, the Democratic Party asked King County Elections for the names of provisional voters who had a missing or mismatched signature. Initially, King County did not disclose this list on the theory that disclosure would violate HAVA. The Democratic Party brought a lawsuit in King County Superior Court and Judge Lum ruled that the list of voters was a public record. The Democratic Party then contacted many of those voters to get their signature issue cleared up so the ballot could be counted.
During the 2005 legislative session, the Legislature clarified that records regarding who has a missing or mismatched signature are public documents:
(4) A record must be kept of all ballots with missing and mismatched signatures. The record must contain the date on which the voter was contacted or the notice was mailed, as well as the date on which the voter signed the envelope, a copy of the envelope, a new registration form, or a change-of-name form. That record is a public record under chapter 42.56 RCW and may be disclosed to interested parties on written request. RCW 29A.60.165.
This clarification was simply an extension of the long standing public policy that voter registration records, notices to voters, poll books, etc. are public records. RCW 29A.08.710 – RCW 29A.08.770.
Political Parties:
Following the 2004 Governor’s race, there were many discussions in the elections community and in the Legislature over whether political parties should be allowed to contact voters over signature issues. Many considered the process unbecoming, at best, and a form of harassment, at worst. Others felt that it was a reasonable method to getting voters’ ballots counted. Two issues quickly became evident:
· First, if the information is public, how can a government office release the documents to some requestors but not to others? If it is public, it is public.
· Second, it is difficult to describe in RCW or WAC who can assist a voter and who cannot. A classic example is the elderly voter whose signature doesn’t match because she has aged. Her adult daughter, or a family friend, tries to help her respond to a notice from the County Auditor’s Office. It is difficult to allow for this assistance, but not allow for assistance from others. “Family and friends can assist a voter, but family and friends who are politically active cannot.” “The voter can respond, but third parties cannot assist in that response.” “Third parties cannot deliver the signed affidavit back to the Auditor’s Office, but the U.S. Postal Service can.” “Third parties can deliver ballots to the Auditor’s Office, but cannot deliver affidavits to the Auditor’s Office.” “Persons who are nonpartisan can contact the voter, but persons who are partisan cannot.” This became virtually impossible to describe.
In the end, there is nothing in the law that prohibits the political parties from contacting voters and offering assistance. While some people might believe that this practice “smells bad,” that it will annoy voters, or will confuse voters, it is not prohibited by law.
Letters v. Lists:
I don’t need to tell you that the political parties are requesting these names and planning to contact the voters.
If you decide to give the political parties lists of voters, such as spreadsheets or text files that have been exported from your voter registration system, I assume that you will also give the parties a copy of the form letter sent to those voters. If so, I am assuming that you will then accept a copy of that form letter from a voter who is attempting to correct a missing or mismatched signature.
Likewise, if you decide to give the political parties photocopies of the actual letters sent to voters, I am assuming that you will then accept a photocopy of that letter from a voter.
This is a complicated way of saying: The manner in which you respond to the public records request should correspond with the manner in which you will accept affidavits from voters, because the parties are going to use the format that you provide them.
Attachment:
Finally, I have attached a spreadsheet that was provided to us from one of the parties. I share this only to demonstrate how much the parties are preparing for this “get-the-ballot-counted” campaign, and to demonstrate how much messages can be jumbled. For once, the public record is not ours.
I have provided the applicable WAC below. Please know that I send this reminder email as an effort to reduce the litigation that will likely occur in this election.
Thank you.
Katie Blinn
Assistant Director of Elections
Office of the Secretary of State
kblinn@secstate.wa.gov
(360) 902-4168
WAC 434-261-050
Unsigned oath or mismatched signatures.
(1) If a voter neglects to sign the oath on an absentee or provisional ballot envelope, signs the oath with a mark and fails to have two witnesses attest to the signature, or signs the ballot envelope but the signature on the envelope does not match the signature on the voter registration record, the auditor shall notify the voter by first class mail of the correct procedures for curing the signature. If the ballot is received during the last three business days before the final meeting of the canvassing board, or the voter has been notified by first class mail and has not responded by the last three business days before the final meeting of the canvassing board, the auditor must attempt to notify the voter by telephone using information in the voter registration record.
(2) If the voter neglects to sign the oath on an absentee or provisional ballot envelope, or signs the oath with a mark and fails to have two witnesses attest to the signature, the voter must either:
(a) Appear in person and sign the affidavit no later than the day before certification of the primary or election; or
(b) Sign a copy of the affidavit provided by the auditor, or mark the affidavit in front of two witnesses, and return it to the auditor no later than the day before certification of the primary or election.
(3) If the signature on the oath of an absentee or provisional ballot envelope does not match the signature on the voter registration record, the voter must either:
(a) Appear in person and sign a new registration form no later than the day before certification of the primary or election. The updated signature provided on the new registration form becomes the signature on the voter registration record for the current election and future elections; or
(b) Sign a copy of the affidavit provided by the auditor, and provide a photocopy of a valid government or tribal identification that includes the voter's current signature. The signature on the affidavit must match the signature on the identification, and both of those signatures must match the signature on the ballot envelope. The voter must return the signed affidavit and identification to the auditor no later than the day before certification of the primary or election. The county auditor may also send the voter a new registration form to update the signature on the voter registration record for future elections; or
(c) Sign a copy of the affidavit provided by the auditor in front of two witnesses who attest to the signature. The signature on the affidavit must match the signature on the ballot envelope. The voter must return the signed affidavit to the auditor no later than the day before certification of the primary or election. The county auditor may also send the voter a new registration form to update the signature on the voter registration record for future elections.
(4) If the signature on an absentee or provisional ballot envelope does not match the signature on the registration record because the name is different, the ballot may be counted as long as the handwriting is clearly the same. The auditor shall send the voter a change-of-name form under RCW 29A.08.440 and direct the voter to complete the form. If the signature on an absentee or provisional ballot envelope does not match the signature on the registration record because the voter used initials or a common nickname, the ballot may be counted as long as the surname and handwriting are clearly the same.
(5) A voter may not cure a missing or mismatched signature for purposes of counting the ballot in a recount.
(6) A record must be kept of all ballots with missing and mismatched signatures. The record must contain the date on which the voter was contacted or the notice was mailed, as well as the date on which the voter signed the envelope, a copy of the envelope, a new registration form, or a change-of-name form. That record is a public record under chapter 42.56 RCW and may be disclosed to interested parties on written request.
Realtors are in trouble -- again
In what appears to be an on-going litany of 2008 PAC campaign violations, the Realtors have managed to get into a second furball (dog fight) with the PDC over campaign mailers. (The Realtors recently paid $130,000 fine for 2007 reporting violations).
John Frush, an attorney, reported the alleged violation(s).
Gene Johnson, AP news reporter, tells readers, "The Realtors recently mailed out mailers asking recipients to call the governor to tell her that they don't want tax increases. State law allows PACs to mail out advocacy pieces, as long as they do not reference a candidate by name or office. The Realtors allegedly violated the law by asking citizens to call the governor to voice their opposition to increased taxes."
In response to the allegations, the "Public Disclosure Commission's compliance director, Phil Stutzman ordered the Realtors this week to file certain reports detailing spending on political mailers. The association did so "under protest," arguing that the spending did not need to be reported."
It's not clear if Mr. Frush called in the complaint or filed an official complaint by mail. (The complaint is NOT listed on the PDC website).
The entire AP article can be read here: http://www.examiner.com/a-1667008~Campaign_watchdog_looks_at_Wash__Realtors_spending.html
John Frush, an attorney, reported the alleged violation(s).
Gene Johnson, AP news reporter, tells readers, "The Realtors recently mailed out mailers asking recipients to call the governor to tell her that they don't want tax increases. State law allows PACs to mail out advocacy pieces, as long as they do not reference a candidate by name or office. The Realtors allegedly violated the law by asking citizens to call the governor to voice their opposition to increased taxes."
In response to the allegations, the "Public Disclosure Commission's compliance director, Phil Stutzman ordered the Realtors this week to file certain reports detailing spending on political mailers. The association did so "under protest," arguing that the spending did not need to be reported."
It's not clear if Mr. Frush called in the complaint or filed an official complaint by mail. (The complaint is NOT listed on the PDC website).
The entire AP article can be read here: http://www.examiner.com/a-1667008~Campaign_watchdog_looks_at_Wash__Realtors_spending.html
Worst Political Ads
I found an interesting article posted on WebMD by Sherry Rauh, titled, "How Political campaigns Use Advertising to Trigger Emotions and Change Minds." (Under the psychology of Political Ads category). (Click title for link).
Do political ads have a lasting impact?
"Not really," according to John G. Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University. "The current data suggests ads have a shelf life of three to four days. Once the ads stop running, they are quickly forgotten." Geer is the author of "In Defense of Negativity."
Ted Brader, a University of Michigan political scientist ran tests to determine the effects of feel good ads vs. fear ads for his book, "Campaigning for hearts and Minds: How emotional appeals in Political ads work." Brader reports that positive ads have the ability to make people act without thinking and negative ads -- which generate fear or anger -- prompt people to evaluate information more carefully.
"People regard fear ads as the worst kind of negative ad." That's a misconception according to Brader. "Fear is useful in political discourse, he says. It can direct public attention to important issues. It prompts people to seek more information and rethink their course of action."
While experts appear to agree that individual ads lack lasting impact, the cumulative effects of multiple ads can shape the public's overall perception of a candidate. In fact, Brader tells readers, "If the ads were successful in painting a candidate as extreme, it could be polarizing," creating doubts that carry over into the newly elected official's term.
Local Negative Advertising --
Locally, the hands down winner for negative ads is Steve Van Luven (R -Washington) candidate for State Senate in the 40th Legislative District. Van Luven and his supporters circulated fliers and mailers claiming that his opponent, Kevin Ranker(D) wants a cop killer released from prison. Sam Taylor, Gov. Reporter for The Bellingham Herald did a great job debunking the distortions and lies in Van Luven's ads.
Across the State --
The jury is still out on this one. (Gregoire and Rossi still have 3 days to throw mud at each other).
Across the Nation --
The hands down winner for the top negative political ad of all time is the "Daisy" ad former President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) ran against Barry Goldwater(R) back in 1964. The ad features a little girl sitting in a field, plucking pedals from a daisy -- just before she is annihilated by a nuclear explosion.
Love them or Hate them -- other Effective Ads
The 1988 Willie Horton ad created for former President George H.W. Bush, (R). The Horton ad claimed that Michael Dukakis's(D) revolving prison door policy gave weekend furloughs to first degree murders not eligible for parole. While out, many committed other crimes, including rape and kidnapping. "Now Michael Dukakis says he wants to do for America what he's done for Massachusetts. America can't afford that risk," the ad said.
Back in 2003, Arianna Huffington (D-California), who ran in the gubernatorial recall election ran an Internet ad that cast Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gray Davis, President George Bush (and others) as characters in a "special interest brothel" with G strings and pasties.
The Creative Touch --
Diane Benson (D-Alaska) Under the title of relevant "Experience.” Benson created a video of herself scooping up dog poop in her back yard. The video can be viewed at the Politico.com link below.
Locally, Mark Flanders (D-Washington), candidate for State House, 42nd Legislative District, who used Value Coupons to advertise his campaign.
Background resource materials:
From Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14899.html
From Minnesota Public Radio links and listed resources (links go directly to MPR site).
Audio:
The worst political ads in America (story audio)
Daisy ad: LBJ vs. Barry Goldwater, 1964. One award is named after this ad
Willie Horton ad: George H.W. Bush vs. Michael Dukakis, 1988
Dean Alger sings "Your Cheatin' Heart in Those Campaign Ads"
Photos
"Special interest brothel"
Lee Lynch
Dean Alger
Resources
Arianna Huffington ad: Special Interest Brothel (requires Flash player)
Political Communication Lab at Stanford University: Research on political advertising
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Dino Rossi Statement on Judge Kallas Decision
Redmond, WA – The Dino Rossi for Governor campaign released the following statement today in response to Monday's ruling by Judge Kallas:
“Whenever Christine Gregoire gets into political trouble, she sends her friends to court to try to win what she is losing with voters. Now her major donors and partisan operatives are using the legal system to generate headlines and keep Dino off the campaign trail during the last week of this campaign. All this to answer the same basic question that Dino answered under oath with the PDC in 2007, namely, when ‘when did he become a candidate?’ His deposition was taken last year on this subject by the PDC which found that he became a candidate in October 2007. But then, Gregoire and her friends already knew that. They don’t care. They have accomplished their mission.
“Now it appears Dino will have to cancel campaign appearances to answer the same basic questions again. He will of course comply with the Judge’s order.”
Rossi Press Release: http://www.dinorossi.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299&Itemid=69
For a critique of Bellingham Herald Government Reporter,Sam Taylor's coverage of this story in the Herald -- please see Wally Wonders Why: http://www.wallywonderswhy.com/?p=1634
“Whenever Christine Gregoire gets into political trouble, she sends her friends to court to try to win what she is losing with voters. Now her major donors and partisan operatives are using the legal system to generate headlines and keep Dino off the campaign trail during the last week of this campaign. All this to answer the same basic question that Dino answered under oath with the PDC in 2007, namely, when ‘when did he become a candidate?’ His deposition was taken last year on this subject by the PDC which found that he became a candidate in October 2007. But then, Gregoire and her friends already knew that. They don’t care. They have accomplished their mission.
“Now it appears Dino will have to cancel campaign appearances to answer the same basic questions again. He will of course comply with the Judge’s order.”
Rossi Press Release: http://www.dinorossi.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=299&Itemid=69
For a critique of Bellingham Herald Government Reporter,Sam Taylor's coverage of this story in the Herald -- please see Wally Wonders Why: http://www.wallywonderswhy.com/?p=1634
Saturday, October 25, 2008
BIAW Lawsuit will move forward
On Friday, A King County Superior Court judge chose not to dismiss a lawsuit brought by two former Supreme Court justices against the Building Industry Association of Washington.
The lawsuit alleges that Dino Rossi illegally coordinated fundraising with the BIAW before he became a candidate for governor.
The Judge will rule Monday whether or not Rossi will be deposed before the general election.
http://www.theolympian.com/breakingnews/story/634039.html
The lawsuit alleges that Dino Rossi illegally coordinated fundraising with the BIAW before he became a candidate for governor.
The Judge will rule Monday whether or not Rossi will be deposed before the general election.
http://www.theolympian.com/breakingnews/story/634039.html
Friday, October 24, 2008
Renton Man Steals 138 Campaign Signs
King County law enforcement announced that a 43 year old Renton man stole 138 "Marcie Maxwell for State Representative" (41st Legislative District) campaign signs in King County.
KIRO tells viewers, "Police expect man will be charged with eight counts of removing or defacing political advertising, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and 90 days in jail for each count."
http://www.kirotv.com/politics/17789459/detail.html?ib_locationdomain=whatcomforum.blogspot.com&ib_locationpage=http://whatcomforum.blogspot.com/&ib_embedtype=slide&ib_embedcolor=blueSolid&ib_station=kiro&ib_embedcategory=localNews
KIRO tells viewers, "Police expect man will be charged with eight counts of removing or defacing political advertising, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and 90 days in jail for each count."
http://www.kirotv.com/politics/17789459/detail.html?ib_locationdomain=whatcomforum.blogspot.com&ib_locationpage=http://whatcomforum.blogspot.com/&ib_embedtype=slide&ib_embedcolor=blueSolid&ib_station=kiro&ib_embedcategory=localNews
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Here's the Ranker hit pieces that are being distributed throughout the 40th Legislative District
Smear tactics differ from normal political discourse in that they do not bear upon the issues or arguments of a campaign. A smear is a carefully planned tactic to malign a candidate and undermine his/her credibility with the voters.
Even though smear tactics are considered by many to be a low form of discourse; they are nevertheless very common.
They also violate the provisions of WAC 390-32-310, Washington's Fair Campaign Practices Code, as adopted by the Public Disclosure Commission. Granted, the code is a guideline - (The PDC will not enforce it). But voters have the right to choose candidates who treat opponents and citizens with respect, rather than contempt.
Last week, Sam Taylor, government reporter for The Bellingham Herald debunked the personal attacks against Kevin in his political blog.
Taylor conducted a detailed background investigation which revealed that information published about Ranker in these fliers are “false, distortions or spin” Taylor's article in The Bellingham Herald can be read here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/102/story/597735.html
The San Juan Islander also address the attacks head-on here: http://www.sanjuanislander.com/columns/rumor-control/2008.shtml
Here are links to copies of the fliers and press release that have been allegedly distributed by Steve Van Luven and his supporters.
The first set of fliers were allegedly distributed at forums and other events in the 40th Legislative District: flier 1 states that the Steve Van Luven for State Senate Committee paid for the cost of copying the document. Flier 1.1 is a press release falsely accusing Ranker of participating in a protest to release a convicted cop killer, Mumia Abu-Jamal.
vanluvennegflier1vanluvennegflier11
The second set of fliers were allegedly placed in Bellingham newspaper boxes by persons unknown. Julie Shirley's post regarding the fliers may be found here: http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/index.php?blog=11&title=campaign_flyers_appear_in_herald_boxes&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
RCW 42.17.120 requires that sponsor(s) of political advertising identify themselves. The only flier in this collection that includes sponsor identification is flier 1.
There is no information posted on the other two fliers identifying the sponsor(s) or group that printed or distributed the fliers.
Looks like a valid Attorney General's Office complaint to me --
Open, honest, transparent elections are worth fighting for!
Relevant rules and statutes:
Fair Campaign Practices Code
WAC 390-32-010 - The public disclosure commission adopts this Fair Campaign Practices Code. Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 42.17.370
(1) I shall conduct my campaign, and to the extent reasonably possible shall insist that my supporters conduct themselves, in a manner consistent with the best American tradition, discussing the issues and presenting my record and policies with sincerity and candor.
(2) I shall uphold the right of every qualified voter to free and equal participation in the election process.
(3) I shall not participate in, and I shall condemn, personal vilification, defamation, and other attacks on any opposing candidate or party which I do not believe to be truthful, provable, and relevant to my campaign.
(4) I shall not use or authorize, and I shall condemn material relating to my campaign which falsifies, misrepresents, or distorts the facts, including but not limited to malicious or unfounded accusations creating or exploiting doubts as to the morality, patriotism or motivations of any party or candidate.
(5) I shall not appeal to, and I shall condemn appeals to, prejudices based on race, creed, sex or national origin.
(6) I shall not practice, and I shall condemn practices, which tend to corrupt or undermine the system of free election or which hamper or prevent the free expression of the will of the voters.
(7) I shall promptly and publicly repudiate the support of any individual or group which resorts, on behalf of my candidacy or in opposition to that of my opponent(s) to methods in violation of the letter or spirit of this code.
(8) I shall refrain from any misuse of the Public Disclosure Law, chapter 42.17 RCW to gain political advantage for myself or any other candidate.[Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.370(1). 85-22-029 (Order 85-04), § 390-32-010, filed 10/31/85; Order 93, § 390-32-010, filed 8/26/77; Order 64, § 390-32-010, filed 11/25/75; Order 62, § 390-32-010, filed 8/26/75; Order 50, § 390-32-010, filed 3/3/75. http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=390-32-010
RCW 42.17.120 -- No contribution shall be made and no expenditure shall be incurred, directly or indirectly, in a fictitious name, anonymously, or by one person through an agent, relative, or other person in such a manner as to conceal the identity of the source of the contribution or in any other manner so as to effect concealment.
RCW 42.17.120 can be viewed here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.17.120
WAC 390-32-010 can be viewed here: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.17.120
Definition of Smear Campaign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_campaign
Photo of Kevin and one of his supporters from his Senate campaign website: http://www.kevinranker.com/index.html
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Update on BIAW Change PAC Scandal
"After experiencing the viciousness of the attacks designed to silence BIAW, we felt compelled to do everything we could to give a voice to small businesses. Clearly Gregoire supporters are willing to do anything and everything to re-elect her, including stripping BIAW of its First Amendment Rights and abusing the court system to carry out a political smear campaign, so BIAW came to the conclusion we must do everything we can to support Rossi on behalf of small businesses." (Erin Shannon - BIAW)
Click here to see a statement that the BIAW issued jointly with other Rossi supporters, the National Federation of Independent Business and the Washington State Farm Bureau about the decision to spend $4 million in the last weeks of the campaign.
Rossi supporters were quick to condemn allegations made by Fuse, Click here to see Fuse’s statement. Fuse also is connected to two former Supreme Court justices who have sued BIAW and intend to sue Rossi over allegations he courted builder financing prior to becoming a candidate in 2007.
Click here for the entire story: Brad Shannon's "The Politics Blog" at "The Olympian." http://www.theolympian.com/politicsblog/story/620200.html
Click here to see a statement that the BIAW issued jointly with other Rossi supporters, the National Federation of Independent Business and the Washington State Farm Bureau about the decision to spend $4 million in the last weeks of the campaign.
Rossi supporters were quick to condemn allegations made by Fuse, Click here to see Fuse’s statement. Fuse also is connected to two former Supreme Court justices who have sued BIAW and intend to sue Rossi over allegations he courted builder financing prior to becoming a candidate in 2007.
Click here for the entire story: Brad Shannon's "The Politics Blog" at "The Olympian." http://www.theolympian.com/politicsblog/story/620200.html
Lies, lies and more lies
Fighting rumors in the Media and on the Internet takes hyper vigilance and a lot of caffeine. Left unchecked, these rumors can get out of control, because perception is fact" (Ron Bonjean - CNN).
We've all heard them. Rumors that Senator McCain told "60 Minutes" that he was a war criminal who intentionally bombed women and children in Vietnam. And, rumors that Senator Obama is a Muslim. But McCain didn't tell 60 minutes that he was a war criminal and Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim.
Both Obama and McCain have been forced to deal with an unprecedented number of smear attacks that started on the Internet, got washed through the mainstream media and passed back and forth to American households through e-mail.
Obama has been accused of not being a natural born citizen, therefore ineligible to run for the presidency. McCain has been accused of rude behavior during a vacation at Turtle Island. But it doesn't stop with the presidential candidates. Biden and Palin, V.P. candidates have also been the targets of smear campaigns.
Be a Savvy voter - check the facts before you mark your ballots.
Sources for debunking smears:
Fight the smears (Obama) can be found here: http://fightthesmears.com/
Fact Check: (Obama is on the board of this organization) can be found here: http://www.factcheck.org/
Truth or Fiction, a bi-partisan site, can be found here:http://www.truthorfiction.com/
CNN Article "Candidates hit back hard" link is here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/internet.rumors/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
We've all heard them. Rumors that Senator McCain told "60 Minutes" that he was a war criminal who intentionally bombed women and children in Vietnam. And, rumors that Senator Obama is a Muslim. But McCain didn't tell 60 minutes that he was a war criminal and Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim.
Both Obama and McCain have been forced to deal with an unprecedented number of smear attacks that started on the Internet, got washed through the mainstream media and passed back and forth to American households through e-mail.
Obama has been accused of not being a natural born citizen, therefore ineligible to run for the presidency. McCain has been accused of rude behavior during a vacation at Turtle Island. But it doesn't stop with the presidential candidates. Biden and Palin, V.P. candidates have also been the targets of smear campaigns.
What's the truth?
Sarah Palin did not ban books from the library when she was mayor of Wasilla, nor is she a member of the Alaska Independence Party. Trig is Sarah Palin's son, not her daughter's son.
Obama was born in Hawaii and the professor who was circulating the e-mail about McCain's rude behavior told interviewers that she did not start the rumor, she only forwarded an e-mail after she received it from a friend.
Last, but not least, Joe Biden is not stepping down so Hilary Clinton can take his place as Obama's V.P. running mate.
CNN tells us, "if you have spent any time browsing the Internet this year, you may have read rumors to the contrary."
"All these stories -- and more -- are being e-mailed to friends and family and posted on blogs."
And they are all false.
Washington Public relations expert Ron Bonjean told CNN "The best way to fight Internet rumors is to go straight to the news media and try to get a story published saying 'this is not true,'" he said. "For any site that is promoting this rumor, you want to counter-attack it with the facts."
If the rumor appears on a blog, he said, "flood it with comments from your team, or activate grassroots support. Ask your friends and campaign allies to do it."
Truth or Fiction told interviewers that Palin and Obama are the primary targets of Internet based smears. Fight the Smears has a website dedicated to debunking lies about Barack Obama.Be a Savvy voter - check the facts before you mark your ballots.
Sources for debunking smears:
Fight the smears (Obama) can be found here: http://fightthesmears.com/
Fact Check: (Obama is on the board of this organization) can be found here: http://www.factcheck.org/
Truth or Fiction, a bi-partisan site, can be found here:http://www.truthorfiction.com/
CNN Article "Candidates hit back hard" link is here: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/internet.rumors/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Who's smearing who?
From the Rasmussen reports: 10/3/08
The race for Washington’s next Governor is now a tie. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds incumbent Christine Gregoire and challenger Dino Rossi each attracting 48% of the vote.
Gregoire is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 47%. Her job performance is rated 43% good or excellent from voters, while 35% say she is doing a poor job.
Former State Senator Rossi’s ratings are 50% favorable, 48% unfavorable.
Over $30 million dollars has been spent on the Gubernatorial campaign - with additional contributions on the way.
It's unknown at this time if buildergate is having any impact on Rossi's favorable standing with voters.
The Rasmussen Report: Election 2008: Washington Governor
Gregoire and Rossi Tied in Washington’s Gubernatorial Race
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_governor_elections/washington/election_2008_washington_governor
Pollster graph: http://www.pollster.com/polls/wa/08-wa-gov-ge-rvg.php?xml=http://www.pollster.com/flashcharts/content/xml/08WAGovGERvG.xml&choices=Rossi,Gregoire&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=1&lines=1&colors=Rossi-BF0014,Gregoire-2247AF
The race for Washington’s next Governor is now a tie. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state finds incumbent Christine Gregoire and challenger Dino Rossi each attracting 48% of the vote.
Gregoire is viewed favorably by 51% and unfavorably by 47%. Her job performance is rated 43% good or excellent from voters, while 35% say she is doing a poor job.
Former State Senator Rossi’s ratings are 50% favorable, 48% unfavorable.
Over $30 million dollars has been spent on the Gubernatorial campaign - with additional contributions on the way.
It's unknown at this time if buildergate is having any impact on Rossi's favorable standing with voters.
The Rasmussen Report: Election 2008: Washington Governor
Gregoire and Rossi Tied in Washington’s Gubernatorial Race
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_governor_elections/washington/election_2008_washington_governor
Pollster graph: http://www.pollster.com/polls/wa/08-wa-gov-ge-rvg.php?xml=http://www.pollster.com/flashcharts/content/xml/08WAGovGERvG.xml&choices=Rossi,Gregoire&phone=&ivr=&internet=&mail=&smoothing=&from_date=&to_date=&min_pct=&max_pct=&grid=&points=1&lines=1&colors=Rossi-BF0014,Gregoire-2247AF
Monday, October 13, 2008
Nobody is going to believe that this is not political
No doubt about it. Former Washington Supreme Court Justices Robert F. Utter and Faith Ireland have certainly shaken up Washington State politics with their newly filed lawsuit against Gubernatorial candidate, Dino Rossi.
In the suit, Utter and Ireland accuse Rossi of coordinating fundraising activities with the builders to build a $3.5 million dollar war chest for the 2008 elections before he became a candidate for Governor. (According to the AP, both Utter and Ireland are supporters of Governor Gregoire).
In response to the suit, Senior Assistant Attorney General Linda Dalton drafted a letter stating that King County Superior court does not have legal jurisdiction in a case charging that Dino Rossi improperly helped the BIAW raise campaign money.
According to Dalton, "to the extent there are new claims in their citizen action letter, the law requires notice and opportunity for the state to investigate before a citizen action suit can be filed."
Here's Knoll Lowney's response to state attorney general opinion.
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna filed two lawsuits against the builders after the Public Disclosure Commission conducted an investigation into allegations that the Builders had not reported ROII funds that were deposited into the account for Change PAC.
Here's an excerpt from the AGs press release: "In the Master Builders’ case, the office agreed with the PDC’s recommendation that “evidence of the investigation supports the allegation the MBA-K&S’ “Just 10%” program failed to register and report contributions and expenditures required under state law and committed multiple apparent violations” of the states’ campaign finance disclosure law. The court assigned the MBA K&S case to Judge Gary Tabor and scheduled a status conference for Dec. 19, 2008.
In the BIAW-MSC case, the office also agreed with the commission’s recommendation that “evidence of the investigation supports “the allegation that BIAW-MSC committed multiple apparent violations” of the law “by failing to register as a political action committee and report contributions it solicited, received and retained from its local associations in 2007, and by failing to reports expenditures to ChangePAC in 2008 with the contributions received.” The court assigned the MBA K&S case to Judge Christine Pomeroy and scheduled a status conference for Dec. 19, 2008. Attorney General’s Office files two suits against builders groups for alleged campaign violations
John Landenburg, McKenna's opponent, along with Utter and Ireland's attorney, insist that McKenna recuse himself from the case, based on the allegation that he is biased because he received funds from the BIAW in past campaigns.
Apparently, even Landenburg plans to use Utter and Ireland's suit to launch himself into public office. (Might as well get the maximum bang for the $ being spent on this very professional campaign tactic).
McKenna's opponent is right about one thing, "no one is going to believe that this is not political."
For a detailed update from the Attorney General's Office, click here: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/151140.asp
Link to Smith and Lowney's entire overview of the BIAW case can be found here: http://www.smithandlowney.com/guide-UtterBIAW.html
Link to AP article can be found here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/northwest/story/591509.html
In the suit, Utter and Ireland accuse Rossi of coordinating fundraising activities with the builders to build a $3.5 million dollar war chest for the 2008 elections before he became a candidate for Governor. (According to the AP, both Utter and Ireland are supporters of Governor Gregoire).
In response to the suit, Senior Assistant Attorney General Linda Dalton drafted a letter stating that King County Superior court does not have legal jurisdiction in a case charging that Dino Rossi improperly helped the BIAW raise campaign money.
According to Dalton, "to the extent there are new claims in their citizen action letter, the law requires notice and opportunity for the state to investigate before a citizen action suit can be filed."
Here's Knoll Lowney's response to state attorney general opinion.
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna filed two lawsuits against the builders after the Public Disclosure Commission conducted an investigation into allegations that the Builders had not reported ROII funds that were deposited into the account for Change PAC.
Here's an excerpt from the AGs press release: "In the Master Builders’ case, the office agreed with the PDC’s recommendation that “evidence of the investigation supports the allegation the MBA-K&S’ “Just 10%” program failed to register and report contributions and expenditures required under state law and committed multiple apparent violations” of the states’ campaign finance disclosure law. The court assigned the MBA K&S case to Judge Gary Tabor and scheduled a status conference for Dec. 19, 2008.
In the BIAW-MSC case, the office also agreed with the commission’s recommendation that “evidence of the investigation supports “the allegation that BIAW-MSC committed multiple apparent violations” of the law “by failing to register as a political action committee and report contributions it solicited, received and retained from its local associations in 2007, and by failing to reports expenditures to ChangePAC in 2008 with the contributions received.” The court assigned the MBA K&S case to Judge Christine Pomeroy and scheduled a status conference for Dec. 19, 2008. Attorney General’s Office files two suits against builders groups for alleged campaign violations
John Landenburg, McKenna's opponent, along with Utter and Ireland's attorney, insist that McKenna recuse himself from the case, based on the allegation that he is biased because he received funds from the BIAW in past campaigns.
Apparently, even Landenburg plans to use Utter and Ireland's suit to launch himself into public office. (Might as well get the maximum bang for the $ being spent on this very professional campaign tactic).
McKenna's opponent is right about one thing, "no one is going to believe that this is not political."
For a detailed update from the Attorney General's Office, click here: http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/151140.asp
Link to Smith and Lowney's entire overview of the BIAW case can be found here: http://www.smithandlowney.com/guide-UtterBIAW.html
Link to AP article can be found here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/northwest/story/591509.html
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Smear Campaigns and the People that run them
"You don't defend a lie, instead you talk about everything but the lie."
No doubt about it, the use of "hardball political tactics" is on the rise, but nothing is as distasteful in a race for public office as a smear campaign.
Jawa's Rusty Shakleford said, "Sometimes rumors and lies get spread organically with no need from direction. But sometimes what may seem to be an organic bottom up grassroots movement, may actually be led from the top and may be professionally organized."
Michelle Malkin, (who never backs down from a good scrape), posted, "First, read this. Read the whole thing. Rusty Shackleford — with help from Jane of Armies of Liberation, Stable Hand, the Jawa team, Dan Riehl, Ace of Spades, and Patterico – traced a Palin-bashing YouTube video to a Democrat public relations firm, Winner and Associates, and one of its employees, Ethan S. Winner. They believe the voiceover for the ad — which spreads the lie that Sarah Palin belonged to a fringe third party, the Alaska Independence Party — was done by a professional whose voice they believe was also featured in several Obama ads and other spots produced by Obama top strategist and astroturfer extraordinaire David Axelrod’s firm." http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/22/bloggers-sniff-out-anti-palin-astroturf-campaign-and-the-cover-up-begins/
Savvy voters do not make decisions about candidates based on smear campaigns.
Think carefully about the information you receive over the next two weeks. Traditionally, October is the month for launching smear campaigns. If the source of information about a candidate is anonymous, overtly partisan or sketchy, voters may want to think twice before they accept the "smear as the truth".
For instance, is Dino Rossi's "Buildergate" all that it's cracked up to be? (Is it in fact, a "grassroots movement" to hold Rossi "accountable" or a professionally organized smear campaign to question Rossi's reputation and link Rossi with the builders who have been sued by some of their members and the Attorney General)?
I don't know the answer to the question, but the timing of FUSE's e-mail, followed by the usual media frenzy, forces me to ask the question.
TIMING IS EVERYTHING IN A CAMPAIGN.
This case has big implications for Dino Rossi, who could be deposed before the election. As one would expect, Rossi's campaign has issued statements calling the suit "frivolous" and "political garbage".
Meanwhile, key Democratic strategists hope that court depositions will implicate Rossi in the builder's scandal and aid in the re-election of Gov. Chris Gregoire.
Paul Abrams, over at the Huffington Post tells readers, "But Rossi now may also be channeling Nixon, or at least his disgraced vice president, Spiro Agnew, the only person to resign the vice presidency since John C. Calhoun. Politicians who get caught up in campaign finance scandals are lucky; their deeds go underreported and undiscussed. Let's face it; given the past few years of Republican scandals, misappropriation of campaign funds doesn't score too high on the moxie meter." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/builder-gate-wa-is-the-re_b_130960.html
Where's your documentation, Paul?
Goldy, over at Horsesass.org, (also overtly partisan) has posted an article criticizing the Seattle Times Editorial staff for being secretively partisan. He tells readers that the Times staff has told visiting foreign journalists that he is overtly partisan and nothing more than an extension of the Democratic party. Well, Goldy, if the shoe fits, wear it. (Goldy and his commenters rarely have anything nice to say about Republicans).
No doubt about it, the use of "hardball political tactics" is on the rise, but nothing is as distasteful in a race for public office as a smear campaign.
What is a smear campaign? An organized attack against a candidate's personal and professional character by anonymous aggressors or unscrupulous members of the media.
Why are smear campaigns successful? A smear doesn't have to be true to be effective. Campaigns have a number of options to deal with smears - they can counter the lies with the truth or run the risk of ignoring them and watching the lies spread throughout the community.
But if you're a candidate and you're responding to smear campaigns, you're losing.
A candidate who takes the time to rebut smear attacks focuses the attention of the public on the smear -- rather than his/her qualifications, because the candidate is defending him/herself (or a family member or supporter) in the media. (In other words, they are a good guy or gal). but, as we all know, good guys (gals) always finish last -- at least, in America.
Smear campaigns target a candidate's most precious asset, his or her reputation or the reputation of a close family member.
Individuals who design and launch smear campaigns know that If they can get a voter to question his or her trust in a particular candidate, they can probably steer that voter to support that candidate's opponent.
How are smear campaigns Conducted? Its no secret that the Internet provides a 24/7 medium for "anonymous" individuals to smear candidates. Many newspapers, blogs and radio stations host electronic websites, like The Bellingham Herald's electronic comment pages or KGMIs blogs. Most provide a platform that allows for anonymous postings.
Anonymous attackers can and do use electronic sites to smear reputations of candidates, elected officials and family members.
Anonymous (and sometimes not so anonymous) attackers also use e-mail, fliers, mainstream media and political ads or mailers to question a candidate's qualifications and past behavior. Or, to attack a family member or supporter's character and reputation.
Recently, a group of anonymous San Juan Islanders began circulating a flier that includes several allegations about Kevin Ranker's personal and professional life. (Democratic candidate for 40th Leg. District State Senate).
Why do campaigns indulge in this kind of behavior? Because it works!
In what I consider a twist of irony, Sam Taylor, gov. reporter for The Bellingham Herald, conducted an investigation into the allegations against Kevin Ranker and printed the results of said investigation regarding the smear campaign on his blogs.
The smear piece accused Ranker of not being a member of the Sons of the American Legion, a group for individuals who have an immediate relative who served in the armed forces. (His membership had lapsed).
The flier also claimed that Ranker unfairly takes credit for the work of others, specifically in relation to the work he did to help bring a "once a month" Veteran's clinic to the Islands. (Rep. Quall (D) 40th Leg. District, counters that claim in a press interview).
Finally, Ranker's attackers accused him of "covering up" an old arrest that linked him to "undesirable" protesters. (The charges were reduced to jaywalking). The results of Taylor's investigation can be read here: http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/index.php?blog=12&title=accusations_against_ranker_false_distort&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
The most effective campaign smears are based on a grain of truth and applied in a way that is designed to take advantage of a candidate's weakness.
Let's take a look at a couple of examples of how smear campaigns are conducted.
Proponents of smear campaigns sometimes use "push polling" to identify a candidates supporters and make statements to create doubt about a candidate.
For example, Richard H. Davis, former 2000 John McCain campaign staffer, tells readers in a 2004 Boston Globe article, that anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's adopted daughter was in fact, "illegitimate."
Here's how it works. Back in 2000, a voter gets a call asking if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was "black". If the voter identified him/herself as a McCain supporter, statements were made to discredit McCain and cast doubt about his adopted daughter's ethnicity and background. (Why would someone want to make this a campaign issue)?
Davis tells us that some aspects of this smear were not so subtle. For instance, "Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent out an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had chosen to sire a children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to pick up the charge. "CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have any children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?" (link to Davis's article is listed below)
Didn't matter that the smear campaign was false -- McCain lost South Carolina by a wide margin.
In September, the Jawa Report conducted a comprehensive investigation into allegations that Obama supporters started a number of smear campaigns to discredit Sarah Palin by linking her to a fringe third party in Alaska.Jawa's Rusty Shakleford said, "Sometimes rumors and lies get spread organically with no need from direction. But sometimes what may seem to be an organic bottom up grassroots movement, may actually be led from the top and may be professionally organized."
Michelle Malkin, (who never backs down from a good scrape), posted, "First, read this. Read the whole thing. Rusty Shackleford — with help from Jane of Armies of Liberation, Stable Hand, the Jawa team, Dan Riehl, Ace of Spades, and Patterico – traced a Palin-bashing YouTube video to a Democrat public relations firm, Winner and Associates, and one of its employees, Ethan S. Winner. They believe the voiceover for the ad — which spreads the lie that Sarah Palin belonged to a fringe third party, the Alaska Independence Party — was done by a professional whose voice they believe was also featured in several Obama ads and other spots produced by Obama top strategist and astroturfer extraordinaire David Axelrod’s firm." http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/22/bloggers-sniff-out-anti-palin-astroturf-campaign-and-the-cover-up-begins/
Savvy voters do not make decisions about candidates based on smear campaigns.
Think carefully about the information you receive over the next two weeks. Traditionally, October is the month for launching smear campaigns. If the source of information about a candidate is anonymous, overtly partisan or sketchy, voters may want to think twice before they accept the "smear as the truth".
For instance, is Dino Rossi's "Buildergate" all that it's cracked up to be? (Is it in fact, a "grassroots movement" to hold Rossi "accountable" or a professionally organized smear campaign to question Rossi's reputation and link Rossi with the builders who have been sued by some of their members and the Attorney General)?
I don't know the answer to the question, but the timing of FUSE's e-mail, followed by the usual media frenzy, forces me to ask the question.
TIMING IS EVERYTHING IN A CAMPAIGN.
This case has big implications for Dino Rossi, who could be deposed before the election. As one would expect, Rossi's campaign has issued statements calling the suit "frivolous" and "political garbage".
Meanwhile, key Democratic strategists hope that court depositions will implicate Rossi in the builder's scandal and aid in the re-election of Gov. Chris Gregoire.
Paul Abrams, over at the Huffington Post tells readers, "But Rossi now may also be channeling Nixon, or at least his disgraced vice president, Spiro Agnew, the only person to resign the vice presidency since John C. Calhoun. Politicians who get caught up in campaign finance scandals are lucky; their deeds go underreported and undiscussed. Let's face it; given the past few years of Republican scandals, misappropriation of campaign funds doesn't score too high on the moxie meter." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/builder-gate-wa-is-the-re_b_130960.html
Where's your documentation, Paul?
Goldy, over at Horsesass.org, (also overtly partisan) has posted an article criticizing the Seattle Times Editorial staff for being secretively partisan. He tells readers that the Times staff has told visiting foreign journalists that he is overtly partisan and nothing more than an extension of the Democratic party. Well, Goldy, if the shoe fits, wear it. (Goldy and his commenters rarely have anything nice to say about Republicans).
While I whole heartedly support ATG McKenna's filing of the BIAW lawsuits and the filing of the original Public Disclosure Commission Complaint -- I question the motivation behind the last minute filing of a lawsuit by Utter and Ireland alleging that Rossi broke the law by asking the BIAW if he could count on their support if he filed to run for governor.
If the court finds that it is illegal for prospective candidates to talk to potential supporters before declaring candidacy, (filing public disclosure reports with the PDC), I expect that we will see a rash of similar suits being filed against dozens of Democrats and Republicans across the state. After all, turn about is fair play.
If you haven't read the Jawa Report posting, I suggest you do so. It's a real eye opener!
Have a great weekend!
Sources for background research:
Attorney General files two suits against Builders: http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=21004
Smith & Lowney, Attorneys for Ireland and Utter: http://www.smithandlowney.com/justices.html
The Anatomy of a Smear Campaign, by Richard H. Davis, Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/
Dirty Tricks, on The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/banks
Clark Fredericksen, on Crosscut: http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/18557/
Goldy's Blogs, Horsesass.org: http://www.horsesass.org/
Fuse: https://secure.fusewashington.org/
Fight the Smears Campaign: (Obama fights back) http://fightthesmears.com/articles/22/AyersSmear
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Negative Campaign Ads
"Gotcha! journalism might be entertaining television, but I don't believe it's sound journalism. It's hypocrisy at its best." Angelo Persichilli, The Hill Times.
Are negative campaign ads harmful to the democratic process? Do voters tune out the moment campaigns go negative?
Political Scientist Kenneth Goldstein, UW-Madison, says no. He argues that negative campaign ads like the one posted below actually benefit voters by presenting factual distinctions between candidates.
Goldstein claims that attack ads and hit pieces are "a kind of mult-vitamin for the democratic process, sparking voters' interest and participation."
"There's this gut reaction that if a political advertisement is negative, it must have a deleterious affect on American politics," says Goldstein. "Contrary to conventional wisdom, the more that people are exposed to negative advertising, the more they know, the more engaged they are and the more likely they are to vote." (Quote taken from an article by Dennis Chaptman, 1/2008, published in the University of Wisconsin-Madison News).
Chaptman includes several examples of ads, (both positive and negative for readers to review). http://www.news.wisc.edu/14606
Closer to home, a Washington State Organization, called FUSE -- sent out the following e-mail on Tuesday to announce that it has launched a campaign blitz against Dino Rossi called "Buildergate."
**Please note that a Thurston County Superior Court Judge ruled last week that the BIAW can use Return on Industrial Insurance (ROII) profits to support campaigns during the 2008 election cycle. Additional information about the case can be found in an article published by The Olympian. http://www.theolympian.com/southsound/story/598389.html
**Rob McKenna, Washington State Attorney General, recently filed two lawsuits against the builders for not reporting the funds, as required by Public Disclosure law. The press release can be located here: http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=21004
Here's the electronic press release from FUSE.
"New evidence released today clearly proves that Dino Rossi played an important role in the illegal BIAW fundraising campaign now being prosecuted by the Attorney General. In fact, Rossi was the only collaborator in the illegal fundraising scheme who was not a senior officer of the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW)."'Buildergate' is a major scandal for Dino Rossi - the facts clearly show he played an important role in an illegal fundraising campaign orchestrated by an ultraconservative trade association of powerful developers to support his run for governor," said Aaron Ostrom, Executive Director of Fuse. "And this may only be the tip of the iceberg." Fuse is calling for the immediate appointment of a Special Prosecutor to fully investigate Dino Rossi's role in this fundraising scandal. The clear documentation of Dino Rossi's direct and active participation in the BIAW's illegal fundraising campaign makes it extremely important that the public have access to the full information about his role in the dealings as soon as possible. Fuse was created to fight for the power of ordinary people in politics, and against the corrupting influence of wealthy and powerful special interests. We all need to know the entire story about the BIAW's collaboration with Dino Rossi. Please sign our petition to the Attorney General, and review the full facts about this situation.
http://www.fusewashington.org/page/s/buildergate
Two weeks ago the Chair of the State Public Disclosure Commission found that the participants in this illegal activity reached a "meeting of the minds" and demonstrated an "egregious lack of judgment." What he didn't know at that time was that the participants in this illegal activity included Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Dino Rossi.The evidence clearly shows that Dino Rossi contacted all of the top officers of at least one BIAW chapter, urging them to contribute to the BIAW's war chest for the Governor's race - blatantly known to BIAW members as their "Fund for Rossi." These calls were part of an illegal fundraising campaign that is now being prosecuted by the Attorney General.The facts of the Buildergate fundraising scandal, including all of the claims in this email, are clearly outlined and documented on our website. The website includes additional information about the BIAW's financial and legislative relationship with Dino Rossi over the years.Click on this link to sign our petition to the Attorney General, and to review the full facts about this situation.
More information about FUSE can be found here: http://www.fusewashington.org/page/s/buildergate
The flip side --
"Voters tuning out from soap opera election coverage", by By Angelo Persichilli, The Hill Times. http://www.thehilltimes.ca/members/login.php?fail=2&destination=/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2008/september/22/backrooms/&c=2
"All News fit to Smear" by Andrea Peyser, of the New York Post. http://www.nypost.com/seven/02222008/news/columnists/all_news_fit_to_smear_98809.htm
Are negative campaign ads harmful to the democratic process? Do voters tune out the moment campaigns go negative?
Political Scientist Kenneth Goldstein, UW-Madison, says no. He argues that negative campaign ads like the one posted below actually benefit voters by presenting factual distinctions between candidates.
Goldstein claims that attack ads and hit pieces are "a kind of mult-vitamin for the democratic process, sparking voters' interest and participation."
"There's this gut reaction that if a political advertisement is negative, it must have a deleterious affect on American politics," says Goldstein. "Contrary to conventional wisdom, the more that people are exposed to negative advertising, the more they know, the more engaged they are and the more likely they are to vote." (Quote taken from an article by Dennis Chaptman, 1/2008, published in the University of Wisconsin-Madison News).
Chaptman includes several examples of ads, (both positive and negative for readers to review). http://www.news.wisc.edu/14606
Closer to home, a Washington State Organization, called FUSE -- sent out the following e-mail on Tuesday to announce that it has launched a campaign blitz against Dino Rossi called "Buildergate."
**Please note that a Thurston County Superior Court Judge ruled last week that the BIAW can use Return on Industrial Insurance (ROII) profits to support campaigns during the 2008 election cycle. Additional information about the case can be found in an article published by The Olympian. http://www.theolympian.com/southsound/story/598389.html
**Rob McKenna, Washington State Attorney General, recently filed two lawsuits against the builders for not reporting the funds, as required by Public Disclosure law. The press release can be located here: http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=21004
Here's the electronic press release from FUSE.
"New evidence released today clearly proves that Dino Rossi played an important role in the illegal BIAW fundraising campaign now being prosecuted by the Attorney General. In fact, Rossi was the only collaborator in the illegal fundraising scheme who was not a senior officer of the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW)."'Buildergate' is a major scandal for Dino Rossi - the facts clearly show he played an important role in an illegal fundraising campaign orchestrated by an ultraconservative trade association of powerful developers to support his run for governor," said Aaron Ostrom, Executive Director of Fuse. "And this may only be the tip of the iceberg." Fuse is calling for the immediate appointment of a Special Prosecutor to fully investigate Dino Rossi's role in this fundraising scandal. The clear documentation of Dino Rossi's direct and active participation in the BIAW's illegal fundraising campaign makes it extremely important that the public have access to the full information about his role in the dealings as soon as possible. Fuse was created to fight for the power of ordinary people in politics, and against the corrupting influence of wealthy and powerful special interests. We all need to know the entire story about the BIAW's collaboration with Dino Rossi. Please sign our petition to the Attorney General, and review the full facts about this situation.
http://www.fusewashington.org/page/s/buildergate
Two weeks ago the Chair of the State Public Disclosure Commission found that the participants in this illegal activity reached a "meeting of the minds" and demonstrated an "egregious lack of judgment." What he didn't know at that time was that the participants in this illegal activity included Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Dino Rossi.The evidence clearly shows that Dino Rossi contacted all of the top officers of at least one BIAW chapter, urging them to contribute to the BIAW's war chest for the Governor's race - blatantly known to BIAW members as their "Fund for Rossi." These calls were part of an illegal fundraising campaign that is now being prosecuted by the Attorney General.The facts of the Buildergate fundraising scandal, including all of the claims in this email, are clearly outlined and documented on our website. The website includes additional information about the BIAW's financial and legislative relationship with Dino Rossi over the years.Click on this link to sign our petition to the Attorney General, and to review the full facts about this situation.
More information about FUSE can be found here: http://www.fusewashington.org/page/s/buildergate
The flip side --
"Voters tuning out from soap opera election coverage", by By Angelo Persichilli, The Hill Times. http://www.thehilltimes.ca/members/login.php?fail=2&destination=/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=2008/september/22/backrooms/&c=2
"All News fit to Smear" by Andrea Peyser, of the New York Post. http://www.nypost.com/seven/02222008/news/columnists/all_news_fit_to_smear_98809.htm
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Another Campaign Wrinkle in Indiana
Democrat James Mansfield refuses to give up his battle for mayor of Muncie, Indiana. Mansfield announced on April 23, 2008, that he would ask the Indiana Court of Appeals to review an election deadline he believes is unconstitutional.
At the heart of the dispute is Precinct 46 - Mansfield was the presumptive winner of the election until December 20th, when a re-count uncovered 19 flawed absentee ballots, the majority which contained Mansfield votes.
The recount resulted in Mansfield's challenger, Republican Sharon McShurley over taking Mansfield in the vote count. McShurley took office on January 1st, 2008. Mansfield's case is unusual, because he was originally certified the winner in a narrow election victory in a November 20th election board hearing. Even after the 14 day presumptive deadline had passed, Mansfield was still the presumptive winner of the General Election.
The absentee ballots in Precinct 46 were dismissed because they were not properly endorsed according to Indiana election law. It remains unknown who is responsible for the errors or who is at fault. Indiana election law requires a political appointee from each party, to mark absentee ballots with their initials before mailing them to voters. The ballots only had one inital, which belonged to a Democrat.
Mansfield had 14 days according to Indiana law to call for a special election.
Election Results: http://www.munciefreepress.com/node/18132
At the heart of the dispute is Precinct 46 - Mansfield was the presumptive winner of the election until December 20th, when a re-count uncovered 19 flawed absentee ballots, the majority which contained Mansfield votes.
The recount resulted in Mansfield's challenger, Republican Sharon McShurley over taking Mansfield in the vote count. McShurley took office on January 1st, 2008. Mansfield's case is unusual, because he was originally certified the winner in a narrow election victory in a November 20th election board hearing. Even after the 14 day presumptive deadline had passed, Mansfield was still the presumptive winner of the General Election.
The absentee ballots in Precinct 46 were dismissed because they were not properly endorsed according to Indiana election law. It remains unknown who is responsible for the errors or who is at fault. Indiana election law requires a political appointee from each party, to mark absentee ballots with their initials before mailing them to voters. The ballots only had one inital, which belonged to a Democrat.
Mansfield had 14 days according to Indiana law to call for a special election.
Election Results: http://www.munciefreepress.com/node/18132
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Fair Campaign Practices Code for Candidates and political committees
There are basic principles of decency, honesty, and fair play that should be observed when a candidate publicly announces that he or she intends to run for public office.
In Washington State, the Public Disclosure Commission has adopted the Fair Campaign Practices Code.
WAC 390-32-010
Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 42.17.370 (1) and (6) the public disclosure commission adopts this Fair Campaign Practices Code: (1) I shall conduct my campaign, and to the extent reasonably possible shall insist that my supporters conduct themselves, in a manner consistent with the best American tradition, discussing the issues and presenting my record and policies with sincerity and candor. (2) I shall uphold the right of every qualified voter to free and equal participation in the election process. (3) I shall not participate in, and I shall condemn, personal vilification, defamation, and other attacks on any opposing candidate or party which I do not believe to be truthful, provable, and relevant to my campaign. (4) I shall not use or authorize, and I shall condemn material relating to my campaign which falsifies, misrepresents, or distorts the facts, including but not limited to malicious or unfounded accusations creating or exploiting doubts as to the morality, patriotism or motivations of any party or candidate. (5) I shall not appeal to, and I shall condemn appeals to, prejudices based on race, creed, sex or national origin. (6) I shall not practice, and I shall condemn practices, which tend to corrupt or undermine the system of free election or which hamper or prevent the free expression of the will of the voters. (7) I shall promptly and publicly repudiate the support of any individual or group which resorts, on behalf of my candidacy or in opposition to that of my opponent(s) to methods in violation of the letter or spirit of this code. (8) I shall refrain from any misuse of the Public Disclosure Law, chapter 42.17 RCW to gain political advantage for myself or any other candidate.[Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.370(1). 85-22-029 (Order 85-04), § 390-32-010, filed 10/31/85; Order 93, § 390-32-010, filed 8/26/77; Order 64, § 390-32-010, filed 11/25/75; Order 62, § 390-32-010, filed 8/26/75; Order 50, § 390-32-010, filed 3/3/75.]
I propose that we add the following clause to the WAC to make it clear that item (4) also pertains to immediate members of a candidate's family and the candidate's campaign supporters.
(9) I shall not use nor shall I permit the use of scurrilous attacks on any candidate or the
candidate's immediate family. I shall not participate in or nor shall I permit the use of defamation, libel, or slander against any candidate or the candidate's immediate family. I shall not participate in nor shall I permit the use of any other criticism of any candidate or the candidate's immediate family that I do not believe to be truthful, provable, and relevant to my campaign.
A principled leader will not tolerate attacks against members of a candidate's family, or his/her opponent's supporters.
Nor will a principled leader condone the use of Private Investigators or other individuals to follow or harass his/her opponent's supporters or the supporter's children. It may be legal to have someone followed, but it isn't ethical. No matter how you cut it, the act of surveillance is a "legal" form of intimidation designed to prevent individuals and families from volunteering to help the candidate of their choice. Children and other family members of a candidate (and/or a candidate's supporters) have a right to attend work and school without being followed, intimidated or frightened by an individual or a private investigator employed by: 1) a candidate; or, 2) a political PAC or trade organization that is supporting a particular candidate.
I grew up in a politically active family. My mom worked on two presidential campaigns while I was growing up, (with the actual candidate, not just a local party) and was never harrassed, followed or subjected to personal attacks by members of the media or the opposing candidate's campaign supporters.
I hope 2007 was an aberration -- and that 2008 candidates run clean, competitive campaigns like those conducted by most of our 2007 city council and county council candidates.
In Washington State, the Public Disclosure Commission has adopted the Fair Campaign Practices Code.
WAC 390-32-010
Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 42.17.370 (1) and (6) the public disclosure commission adopts this Fair Campaign Practices Code: (1) I shall conduct my campaign, and to the extent reasonably possible shall insist that my supporters conduct themselves, in a manner consistent with the best American tradition, discussing the issues and presenting my record and policies with sincerity and candor. (2) I shall uphold the right of every qualified voter to free and equal participation in the election process. (3) I shall not participate in, and I shall condemn, personal vilification, defamation, and other attacks on any opposing candidate or party which I do not believe to be truthful, provable, and relevant to my campaign. (4) I shall not use or authorize, and I shall condemn material relating to my campaign which falsifies, misrepresents, or distorts the facts, including but not limited to malicious or unfounded accusations creating or exploiting doubts as to the morality, patriotism or motivations of any party or candidate. (5) I shall not appeal to, and I shall condemn appeals to, prejudices based on race, creed, sex or national origin. (6) I shall not practice, and I shall condemn practices, which tend to corrupt or undermine the system of free election or which hamper or prevent the free expression of the will of the voters. (7) I shall promptly and publicly repudiate the support of any individual or group which resorts, on behalf of my candidacy or in opposition to that of my opponent(s) to methods in violation of the letter or spirit of this code. (8) I shall refrain from any misuse of the Public Disclosure Law, chapter 42.17 RCW to gain political advantage for myself or any other candidate.[Statutory Authority: RCW 42.17.370(1). 85-22-029 (Order 85-04), § 390-32-010, filed 10/31/85; Order 93, § 390-32-010, filed 8/26/77; Order 64, § 390-32-010, filed 11/25/75; Order 62, § 390-32-010, filed 8/26/75; Order 50, § 390-32-010, filed 3/3/75.]
I propose that we add the following clause to the WAC to make it clear that item (4) also pertains to immediate members of a candidate's family and the candidate's campaign supporters.
(9) I shall not use nor shall I permit the use of scurrilous attacks on any candidate or the
candidate's immediate family. I shall not participate in or nor shall I permit the use of defamation, libel, or slander against any candidate or the candidate's immediate family. I shall not participate in nor shall I permit the use of any other criticism of any candidate or the candidate's immediate family that I do not believe to be truthful, provable, and relevant to my campaign.
A principled leader will not tolerate attacks against members of a candidate's family, or his/her opponent's supporters.
Nor will a principled leader condone the use of Private Investigators or other individuals to follow or harass his/her opponent's supporters or the supporter's children. It may be legal to have someone followed, but it isn't ethical. No matter how you cut it, the act of surveillance is a "legal" form of intimidation designed to prevent individuals and families from volunteering to help the candidate of their choice. Children and other family members of a candidate (and/or a candidate's supporters) have a right to attend work and school without being followed, intimidated or frightened by an individual or a private investigator employed by: 1) a candidate; or, 2) a political PAC or trade organization that is supporting a particular candidate.
I grew up in a politically active family. My mom worked on two presidential campaigns while I was growing up, (with the actual candidate, not just a local party) and was never harrassed, followed or subjected to personal attacks by members of the media or the opposing candidate's campaign supporters.
I hope 2007 was an aberration -- and that 2008 candidates run clean, competitive campaigns like those conducted by most of our 2007 city council and county council candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)