[EL] Anonymous candidates

Mon Jul 23 12:31:16 PDT 2012

There is nothing to fear but fear itself was the reply to Pearl Harbor for a reason--people
can be at their very worse when afraid.

There is definitely a firearms voting block--the overwhelming majority are people
who like firearms--not to kill someone, but to hunt, target shooting or for personal 
protection. However this voting block does include a small fraction of people who believe 
they need firearms because some terrible threat lurks beyond the walls of their home--fall 
of society, collapse of the economy, or other cataclysmic event. Telling people in this corner 
of gun owning America that their fears are coming true because one party wins is dangerous. 
There is  strong suggestive messaging in media and entertainment that the way to solve problems 
or get attention is by using a firearm to threaten or take another's life.  To be honest very
few cases of self defense come down to firearms that are not often right at hand, but the
person knowing what to do during a crisis.

A real issue for societal self defense starts with the message and tone of campaigns that 
candidates and parties deliver to voters.  There is always an element within society that if 
provide a message and suggestions that aggression and violence are justifiable and that 
is a source of concern.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/palin-target-graphic-in-perspective/

Characterizing opponents as socialist, communist, enemies, threats or other
terms that would heighten fear and anxiety among those predisposed to taking
the messages literally is irresponsible.  This kind of rhetoric did make Martin 
Luther King's life tenuous and finally caused his murder.  Its like watching
a bad movie eveyr few decades.  The formula is the same--fear-fear-fear--easy access
to guns and ammunition and just waiting for the disturbed person. There is no
causal link just years of ebbs and flows of spikes of fear and anxiety that result in 
awful tragedies in the private lives of citizens and sometimes the lives of public figures.

Recent examples of the incitement of violence around political activity:

In 2008, the Chair of the Arkansas Democratic Party was killed:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/13/arkansas.shooting/index.html

Following the passage of the Health Care Reform Act one person called for
listeners to break the windows of Democratic members of Congress.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/after-hcr-passed-militia-leader-said

Subsequently several events in districts to explain the new law were disrupted
by organized protests.  There were threats against members and their staff.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august062009/reform_mobs_8-6-09.php

Giffords' Tragedy in 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

The media reply is that the out of control tone of political discourse is coming
from both sides.  I think this is the attempt as balanced reporting, but obviously
the tone of political discourse post 2008 is harsher and meaner and it is armed
and primed for violence.  This is definitely from one side--Democrats and their 
candidates for decades have received the brunt of this violence President Kennedy,
presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, and George Wallace candidate for the 
nomination of president, U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Martin Luther King 
as well as  Medgar Evers all were victims of gun violence.

I am not saying that people who are delivering their brand of political messaging 
intend that violence should happen.  Their audience has been conditioned over
the years to need fear or have been best motivated by fear to establish urgency
to work for their candidate and vote. The central issue is a basic campaign 
strategy that relies upon motivating people through fear and not being willing
to take the consequences that lead to political violence.  It is not the entire population 
that is the  threat, but the few disturbed people who would hear and react in ways that
messengers like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Michelle Bachmann, or Sarah Palin 
(during her run for VP in 2008) may not intend but potentially could have very sad
consequences. 

On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Bill Maurer wrote:

> Guess I should have read all my emails first, as Professor Gaddie beat me to it.  I blame the time-zones!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Maurer
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:45 AM
> To: mmcdon at gmu.edu; law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: Re: [EL] Anonymous candidates
> 
> I don't have an answer for Professor McDonald, but this has occurred before.  Frankly, I think it says more about the dangers of people with significant psychological problems getting involved in politics than anonymity, a situation that could be changed by giving the parties greater authority to determine who may represent them on a ballot.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Low_Tax%22_Looper 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Michael McDonald
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 7:10 AM
> To: law-election at uci.edu
> Subject: [EL] Anonymous candidates
> 
> In 2002, a candidate for Pulaski County Kentucky Sheriff was murdered by his opponent at a campaign rally.
> 
> http://new.accessnorthga.com/detail.php?n=202457&c=7 
> 
> Murder goes well beyond the alleged harassment of campaign donors that we've heard so frequently on this list about. I am sure that with a little effort, we can compile more examples of candidates being harassed with physical violence, starting with Gabriel Giffords or any elected official who has received death threats. If we are going to insist that people who attempt to influence the political process must be protected by anonymity, then why stop at donors?  Why not protect candidates and elected officials? As has been frequently stated by those who support anonymity, only the message matters, the identity of the messenger does not. So, why do we need to know the identity of candidates? If we are going to protect donors with anonymity, I say let's protect anyone who wishes to affect public policy, from people who wish to speak about politics to friends and neighbors, to campaign volunteers and staff, to candidates. (It is not too difficult to find examples of volunteers be
>   ing physically assaulted.) We can make available special political speech burqas equipped with Darth Vader voice modulators that people can wear if they wish to state political beliefs publicly. 
> 
> Some may counter that people who wish to engage in political speech have the right to create a free speech burqa of their own, even though my proposal was meant to reveal the absurdity of the idea. (Isn't that what lawyers do?
> Generalize from extreme examples?) So, here is my real question for the legal minds on the list, which I hope will spark thoughtful discussion: Why should those who wish to use their money in political speech be granted mechanisms to protect their anonymity while others who wish to use their voice in political speech do not have comparable protections?
> 
> ============
> Dr. Michael P. McDonald
> Associate Professor, George Mason University Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
> 
>                             Mailing address:
> (o) 703-993-4191             George Mason University
> (f) 703-993-1399             Dept. of Public and International Affairs
> mmcdon at gmu.edu               4400 University Drive - 3F4
> http://elections.gmu.edu     Fairfax, VA 22030-4444
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120723/486fe8b3/attachment.html>