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

[Paul Gronke]

My bet is that this stops at the state prosecutor who decides not to proceed.  The statement of a violation will be punishment enough.

The issue of not treating citizens like lab rats is an extremely complicated one.  Let's take a different, only slightly hypothetical, example: suppose an academic researcher believes that by changing the way that wildlife resource "ownership" is allocated, they can generate income for impoverished areas of Africa and also stop illegal poaching of endangered species.  But the researcher is not sure that the program will work.

Is it not better to try out the program experimentally in partnership with a government, rather than just implementing the program wholesale and hoping for the best?

I realize that manipulating the information provided to citizens is a different situation, but the principle is very similar: if you have a program that you believe will improve the process of democratic decision making, some argue that it's actually more ethical to try it out experimentally rather than just implementing it.  

Believe me, this whole controversy has sparked a lot of very productive introspection within the scholarly community.  Hopefully, the outcome won't be to push all of this work out of the world of peer-reviewed research, because believe me as well, these experiments will go on, funded by private entities, and out of public view.
---
Paul Gronke	

Professor, Reed College and
Daniel B. German Endowed Visiting Professor, Appalachian State University

Director, Early Voting Information Center
3203 SE Woodstock Blvd
Portland OR 97202

EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net


On May 13, 2015, at 2:56 AM, Thomas J. Cares <Tom at tomcares.com> wrote:

> 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>
> 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”
> Posted on May 12, 2015 11:21 am by Rick Hasen
> AP reports.
> 
> <share_save_171_16.png>
> Posted in campaigns
> 
>  -- 
> 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 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
> http://electionlawblog.org
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150513/efcab678/attachment.html>