[EL] What were Stanford and Dartmouth supposed to do?

[David Holtzman, Esq.]

Not treat Montanans like lab rats?

The prosecution may be based on the assumption that changing overall turnout percentage changes results.   I think data suggest otherwise.  But a targeted mailing to a subset of voters raises questions about to whom and why.

I can't believe there was no human subjects review by an institutional review board!

  - dah




Sent from a mobile device.   Forgive me. 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Thomas J. Cares" <Tom at TomCares.com>
To: Election Law <law-election at uci.edu>
Sent: Wed, 13 May 2015 12:47 AM
Subject: [EL] What were Stanford and Dartmouth supposed to do?

What could they have done, or how could they have reported the expenditure?
It doesn't sound like they aid any candidate was "*too* conservative" or
"*too* moderate" (sic) or "*too* liberal"

If there's no advocacy for or against a candidate, how can you report
it/what would you report?

The only thing perhaps to apologize for was using the State seal, depending
how it was done. It does seem very strange that, between both of them,
~$100k must have been spent on the apology letters, when it seems dubious
they have anything to apologize for. It sounds like meritorious social
science research. They should be proud, not sorry.

(Come to think of it, perhaps there is a mandatory option to report neutral
spending as neutral. I think I recall this in California disclosures. Still
there seem to be issues here with the line between media and campaign
advocacy. If a newspaper delivered a paper to 100k voters with a piece
measuring how conservative, or liberal, judicial candidates are, they
wouldn't have to report it or apologize, but if universities do it...?)


Thomas Cares

     “Montana: Stanford, Dartmouth mailers broke campaign laws”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72395>
> Posted on May 12, 2015 11:21 am <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=72395> by Rick
> Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> AP reports.
> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_ELECTIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
>  [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D72395&title=%E2%80%9CMontana%3A%20Stanford%2C%20Dartmouth%20mailers%20broke%20campaign%20laws%E2%80%9D&description=>
>   Posted in campaigns <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=59>
>
>    --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's 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 - faxrhasen at law.uci.edu <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','rhasen at law.uci.edu');>http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>

--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150513/f1179991/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150513/f1179991/attachment.png>