[EL] Project Vote v. Project Vote

[Ryan J. Reilly]

Don't forget the copyright issues...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/obama_campaigns_project_vote_name_choice_will_fuel.php

For their part, the original Project Vote sees a more immediate problem with
the name: they own it. Project Vote spokesman Michael McDunnah told TPM in
an email that they "have reason to believe an amicable solution will be
reached shortly."

"We're always happy to see candidates take an interest in voter
registration," Project Vote Executive Director Michael Slate said in a
statement. "However, while we wish them good luck in their registration
efforts, Project Vote, Inc. holds the trademark for that name, and has been
conducting voter registration activities using that name continuously since
1994." Said Slate:

Project Vote, Inc. is a national nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) that
promotes voting in historically underrepresented communities, working to
ensure that our constituencies can register, vote, and cast ballots that
count. We were incorporated in 1994 as 'Voting for America,' and officially
became 'Project Vote/Voting for America' in 1997. We are unrelated to
Project VOTE!, for which President Obama worked in 1992.

"We have contacted attorneys representing Obama for America, and we have
been assured that this matter will be resolved quickly and amicably," Slate
said.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net>wrote:

> I think this whole discussion assumes something that may not be true: that
> “Project Vote” is a brand with any identification beyond those who pay
> attention to these kinds of things. While ACORN might carry a broader
> awareness factor, I think “project vote” sounds more generic. There probably
> have been scores of “project votes” in communities across the land over the
> decades. There is a certain almost noble sound of purpose to “project vote”.
> To attack it as an extension or part of ACORN requires multiple steps of
> linkage. I think such attacks would appeal mostly to those already fixed in
> voting against Obama. Having said all that, the fact that we are having this
> discussion is evidence of why there probably were better choices for a name
> of this operation.****
>
> Larry ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Rick Hasen [mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu]
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:45 AM
> *To:* Larry Levine
> *Cc:* 'Dan Johnson-Weinberger'; 'law-election at uci.edu'
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Project Vote v. Project Vote****
>
> ** **
>
> My impression is that the ACORN meme has permeated beyond core Republican
> voters to independents, and there is no reason for the Obama campaign to
> help stoke the fires for no apparent purpose.
>
> If the name Project Vote was deliberately chosen as a kind of dog whistle
> for the left, I think the point is going to be lost by most Democratic
> voters, who may have heard of ACORN but not Project Vote.
>
>
> On 8/25/2011 9:34 AM, Larry Levine wrote: ****
>
> While you can’t let the other side dictate your agenda – a trap into which
> the administration has stepped with regularity – you also don’t need to buy
> into futile controversy. But above all, you must remember there are people
> out there who won’t voter for you under any circumstances. The late Sen.
> Alan Cranston once said: “If you are running against a rock the rock will
> get 35% of the vote.” In this instance the Obama campaign could have come up
> with a name for the program that would have sidestepped even the possibility
> of becoming an issue. On the other hand they opted for a name that describes
> what they intend to do and will appeal to the targeted audiences. Tell me
> what ACORN hater was going to vote for Obama anyway.****
>
> Larry****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [
> mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]
> *On Behalf Of *Dan Johnson-Weinberger
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2011 9:23 AM
> *To:* Rick Hasen
> *Cc:* law-election at uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Project Vote v. Project Vote****
>
>  ****
>
> Why Project Vote?
>
> Perhaps because the Obama campaign refuses to play to the lowest common
> denominator of those who lie about voter fraud conspiracies in order to
> reduce.the number of citizens who vote. Instead, perhaps, the Obama campaign
> is proud of the President's lifelong work at expanding the electorate and
> will not allow the enemies of full participation to tarnish the name of a
> successful registration campaign that the President helped to lead in 1992.
>
> Perhaps it is less of a "stupid name" and more of a confident choice from
> those who will not concede the truth to their enemies. The meme is a lie. I
> suspect their choice of name reflects that bedrock understanding.
>
> I should say I am neither an employee nor vendor to the Obama campaign so
> my thoughts are mine alone.
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On Thursday, August 25, 2011, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:
> > Project Vote v. Project Vote: Dept. of Dumb Names <
> http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22241>
> >
> > Posted on August 25, 2011 8:47 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22241>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
> >
> > Mike Allen today reports <
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62049.html>for Politico that
> “President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign on Thursday announced ‘Project
> Vote,’ a campaign-within-a-campaign that is aimed at increasing registration
> and participation among Democratic base constituencies — including young
> voters, seniors, African Americans and Hispanics, plus Native Americans and
> gay and lesbian voters.”
> >
> > While the move to increase participation among the Democratic base may be
> a smart one, I cannot think of a more stupid name for the initiative—it is
> going to feed into the right-wing Democratic voter fraud meme.  “Project
> Vote” is also the name of this organization <http://projectvote.org/>, an
> organization aimed at getting out the vote as well.  Although non-partisan
> in the sense that it is not affiliated with any political party, the group
> works toward enfranchisement of groups that have been disenfranchised,
> especially pushing the provisions of the National Voter Registration Act
> (NVRA) which require states to take steps to register voters at welfare
> offices and other government agencies.
> >
> > Project Vote has long been affiliated with ACORN (and there has been some
> dispute about the entangling of the two organizations).  ACORN is now
> defunct, but the cries of voter fraud against ACORN are now being directed
> to Project Vote.  Just today, for example, the Washington Times has run a
> story <
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/24/watchdog-suspicious-of-federal-ties-to-project-vot/>
> on a FOIA request by Judicial Watch to seek information about ties between
> Project Vote and the Justice Department.
> >
> > In conducting research for my book, The Voting Wars, I came across a
> nauseating amount of unsubstantiated claims against President Obama as
> promoting voter fraud to help him win his election.  Much of this writing
> stems from work Obama had done as a community organizer in Chicago and
> briefly as a lawyer for the Project Vote organization.
> >
> > Why on earth would the Obama campaign seek to stoke these conspiracy
> theories, and cause confusion, by naming its efforts Project Vote?
> >
> > </mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=13201a4eddf94059&attid=0.0.1&disp=emb&zw> <
> http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D22241&title=Project%20Vote%20v.%20Project%20Vote%3A%20Dept.%20of%20Dumb%20Names&description=
> >
> > Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,
> fraudulent fraud squad <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=8> | Comments Off
> > --
> > Rick Hasen
> > Professor of Law and Political Science
> > UC Irvine School of Law
> > 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> > Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> > 949.824.3072 <tel:949.824.3072 <949.824.3072>> - office
> > 949.824.0495 <tel:949.824.0495 <949.824.0495>> - fax
> > rhasen at law.uci.edu
> > http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> > http://electionlawblog.org
> >
>
> --
> Dan Johnson-Weinberger
>
> Attorney at Law
> 111 West Washington, Suite 1920
> Chicago, Illinois 60602
>
> 312.867.5377 (office)
> 312.933.4890 (mobile)
> 312.794.7064 (fax)****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://law.uci.edu/faculty/page1_r_hasen.html
> http://electionlawblog.org****
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Ryan J. Reilly
Reporter, TPM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ryanjreilly
(202) 527-9261 (cell)
http://www.twitter.com/ryanjreilly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110825/06e176f0/attachment.html>