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

Wed May 13 09:40:08 PDT 2015

I’m glad we have governmental agencies (or at least complaint procedures) that make sure that the threat to the Republic posed by Stanford and Dartmouth researchers and similar things like Mike Huckabee making a dumb joke in a speech don’t go unpursued.

Good Lord, if this is the type of petty, technical, rules-for-rules-sake “violations” these agencies were designed to enforce, we should all be pushing to make the FEC even less active than it is. Acting in these cases without exercising discretion, care for taxpayer resources, or just common sense demonstrates just how invasive these laws are and the tunnel vision possessed by many agencies charged with enforcing them.

We should also ask whether we are really a free people when a someone conducting a survey or a person making a joke in a speech risk calling the wrath of the government down on their heads. For all the talk of the dysfunction at the FEC, it is instead dysfunctional to have agencies apply rules that would have embarrassed the prefects of Byzantium at its most decrepit.

Bill

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Thomas J. Cares
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:57 AM
To: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] What were Stanford and Dartmouth supposed to do?

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<mailto: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<mailto: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>
[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 - fax

rhasen at law.uci.edu<mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>

http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/

http://electionlawblog.org

--

--
________________________________

Spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OrlVzyU&m=e79f4286856e&t=20150513&c=s>
Phish/Fraud<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OrlVzyU&m=e79f4286856e&t=20150513&c=p>
Not spam<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OrlVzyU&m=e79f4286856e&t=20150513&c=n>
Forget previous vote<https://antispam.roaringpenguin.com/canit/b.php?i=09OrlVzyU&m=e79f4286856e&t=20150513&c=f>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150513/9bea7cfe/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150513/9bea7cfe/attachment.png>