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

Wed May 13 11:16:11 PDT 2015

The text of the decision may be found here: http://politicalpractices.mt.gov/content/2recentdecisions/McCullochvStanfordandDartmouthFinalDecision

Pages 16-17 seem to suggest that the Commissioner focused on the decision to send a larger number of mailers to likely Democrats than to likely Republicans.

Bernard L. Fraga
Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
Indiana University
E: bfraga at indiana.edu
P: (812) 856-0132
W: bernardfraga.com

> On May 13, 2015, at 1:42 PM, David Keating <dkeating at campaignfreedom.org> wrote:
> 
> If anyone looks at the mailing, which we did when this first blew up, there is no doubt that it is not even a close call to a technical campaign finance violation.  It is an abuse of power by Montana officials, pure and simple.
> 
>  
> 
> David
> 
> _________________________________________________
> 
> David Keating | President | Center for Competitive Politics
> 
> 124 S. West Street, Suite 201 | Alexandria, VA 22314
> 
> 703-894-6799 (direct) | 703-894-6800 | 703-894-6811 Fax
> 
> www.campaignfreedom.org
> 
>  
> 
> From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Bill Maurer
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 12:40 PM
> To: Thomas J. Cares; Election Law
> Subject: Re: [EL] What were Stanford and Dartmouth supposed to do?
> 
>  
> 
> 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 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 ofembarrassed 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> 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, 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 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.
> <image001.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
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> 
> Spam
> Phish/Fraud
> Not spam
> Forget previous vote
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election