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

[Thomas J. Cares]

It's funny you mention that, because I found that quote (inserted
below) pretty deranged and it made me contemplate submitting a piece to the
Onion "Montana fines clouds for affecting election turnouts with
inconsiderate rain"

"The most appalling aspect for many voters, the intent to manipulate vote
totals that could potentially change the outcome of an election, was absent
as a consideration in the process"

In all seriousness, the effects of voters having more information, are
legitimate effects.

-Tom

On Wednesday, May 13, 2015, David Holtzman, Esq. <david at holtzmanlaw.com>
wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.eduhttp://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/20150513/4a09b7f1/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/20150513/4a09b7f1/attachment.png>