[EL] Misleading GOP ad (Kyrsten Sinema)

Tue Feb 4 13:34:06 PST 2014

Steve,

I'm not sure your reading of 11 C.F.R. 102.14 is correct.

The relevant regulation is 11 C.F.R. 102.14(b)(3), which states:
An unauthorized political committee may include the name of a candidate in
the title of a special project name or other communication if the
title clearly and unambiguously shows opposition to the named candidate.

The regulation is drafted pursuant to 2 U.S.C 432(e).

I don't see anything in there that would require the "opposition" to be be
included in the "title" if this ad is run by the NRCC.

-Scott F. Bieniek

On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Steve Gold <steve at actblue.com> wrote:

> Anyone can get to any webpage by simply typing the url into the address
> bar on their browser, or by clicking on a direct link from any of a
> plethora of sources (from another webpage, in an email, even in a text
> message).  It's easy to imagine how someone intending to swindle a
> contributor could easily use this page to do so.
>
> I do tend to agree with Tom that this is typical political expression.
> These spoof sites are not unusual and can be effective.  But that is
> somewhat beside the point, especially with regard to the solicitation of
> contributions with very little context.  Phishing is a very real problem,
> and anything that tends to discourage average citizens, who may not be
> terribly tech-savvy, from making small-dollar political contributions
> online (one of the very few ways to efficiently raise small-dollar
> contributions) is bad for our political system.
>
> Anyway, 11 C.F.R.102.14 is clear: An indication of opposition must appear *in
> the title* of the communication, not in the text or on another webpage,
> if the candidate's name is used.  These sites pretty clearly fail that
> test.  Especially in the context of soliciting contributions, that's a
> problem.
>
>
> --
> Steven Gold
> General Counsel
> ActBlue
> steve at actblue.com
> 617.500.4175
> www.actblue.com
>
> We've moved! Please note our new address:
> 366 Summer St.
> Somerville, MA 02144
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 3:24 PM, John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Is there a way, other than using the link in the NBC article, that one
>> reasonably could get to the contribute page without going through the first
>> page?  I tried, but then others are more clever than I.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Thomas J. Cares <Tom at tomcares.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you start at http://sinemaforcongress.com/ , it looks like
>>> perfectly-legitimate political speech to me. I don't think the donate page
>>> is trickery either. Making a sarcastic-negative ________forcongress.___
>>> site for congressional candidates that also seeks contributions to that
>>> candidate's opposing party doesn't seem inappropriate (but rather pretty
>>> much in the spirit of the first amendment).
>>>
>>> -Thomas Cares
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014, Jerald Lentini <jerald.lentini at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If nothing else, the NRCC's disclaimer almost certainly fails to meet
>>>> the requirements of being clear and conspicuous. Language identifying the
>>>> NRCC is entirely outside the white text box and is overlaid on top of a
>>>> photograph. It has the least color contrast of any part of the page, and is
>>>> more difficult to read than any other text.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:08 PM, <info at arizonaspolitics.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (One) irony is that the NRCC trumpeted this back in November, and
>>>> claimed that they were doing it because the "targeted" Democratic
>>>> Representatives were "FRAUDS".
>>>>
>>>> My article: bit.ly/AZp736.
>>>>
>>>> Did further research and found that all 3 Arizona Dems in swing
>>>> districts were targeted with this.  (www.AnnKirkpatrick.com,
>>>> www.SinemaForCongress.com, and www.RonBarber2014.com)  And, in at
>>>> least one of them, the word "Defeat" does NOT show up when the page comes
>>>> up at 100% zoom.
>>>>
>>>> The search engine optimization apparently worked well on Rep. Barber.
>>>>  The NRCC site comes up on page 1 of Google (when you search "Ron Barber
>>>> 2014"), and the official site is on page 5.
>>>>
>>>> My article also lists the 14 Democratic Reps that I was able to find
>>>> have been targeted in this way by the NRCC.
>>>> _____________________
>>>>
>>>> Mitch Martinson
>>>> www.ArizonasPolitics.com
>>>> 602-799-7025
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: [EL] Misleading GOP ad (Kyrsten Sinema)
>>>> From: "Scarberry, Mark" <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
>>>> Date: Tue, February 04, 2014 10:06 am
>>>> To: "law-election at UCI.edu" <law-election at uci.edu>
>>>>
>>>> It absolutely is misleading. If the reader misses one word ("Defeat"),
>>>> the reader would think contributions would be used to support the Democrat.
>>>> You don't have to click through to an obviously anti-Sinema site to
>>>> contribute, nor is there any other indication of the ad's true purpose.
>>>>
>>>> Suppose there had been something conspicuous that would alert the
>>>> would-be contributor, and the ad included a substantive criticism of
>>>> Sinema. Would it be ethical to use the headline to get Sinema supporters to
>>>> read the rest of the ad? My sense is no. It would be different if there
>>>> were three question marks ("???") after the headline.
>>>>
>>>> Mark Scarberry
>>>> Pepperdine
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> > On Feb 4, 2014, at 7:03 AM, "Joseph Birkenstock" <
>>>> jbirkenstock at capdale.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Holy charge-backs, Batman... What's the non-"we're trying to trick
>>>> donors" reason for putting "Kyrsten Sinema for Congress" at the top of that
>>>> webpage?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ________________________________
>>>> > Joseph M. Birkenstock, Esq.
>>>> > Caplin & Drysdale, Chtd.
>>>> > One Thomas Circle, NW
>>>> > Washington, DC 20005
>>>> > (202) 862-7836
>>>> > www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock<http://www.capdale.com/jbirkenstock>
>>>> >
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any
>>>> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
>>>> contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected
>>>> by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is
>>>> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
>>>> sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20140204/458d7fd2/attachment.html>