I agree entirely with Larry.  The slates that endorsed Olson did not do themselves proud.  I was glad to see Allan Hoffenblum, an honorable slate publisher (and former client of mine) acknowledge that he erred in this case.  But the fact that some slate publishers were negligent or worse is no more a reason for opposing or wanting to regulate slate mail than the failure of the LA Times and the rest of the press to cover the Janavs-Olson story is a reason to oppose or regulate the press.
 
     With respect to the "double negative" that the Times story criticizes--"Not paid for or authorized by candidates and ballot measures not marked by an *"--Larry is correct that the story is quite misleading by not including the direct, affirmative statement that also appears in the disclaimer.  Nevertheless, the double negative may well be confusing.  But it does not a reflect a desire by slate publishers to obfuscate.
 
      A California statute passed in 1987 requires a disclaimer on slate mail making three points: 1) that the publisher is X, not an official party organization; 2) that the candidates and propositions marked with an asterisk have paid for the costs of the mailing; and 3) that the candidates and propositions endorsed on the slate do not necessarily endorse each other.  My slate clients and some other slates were including these disclaimers before the 1987 statute, which was borrowed the language that these slates were using.  
 
      Around the same time (I forget whether before or after the statute was passed), the Federal Election Commission brought proceedings against one of my clients.  The client put an asterisk next to the candidates who paid for the mail and included the affirmative statement explaining what the asterisk meant.  The FEC relied on a federal provision requiring mailers supporting federal candidates to disclose that the candidate had or had not paid for the mailing.  The FEC maintained that the federal provision required more than a statement that candidates marked with an asterisk had paid.  They believed it was also necessary to say expressly that those who were not marked had not paid.
 
      I (and my client) thought that was preposterous.  But the client did not think the issue was worth the effort or expense of litigating it.  As a result, all California slates now include the double-negative statement.  The fault, dear Brutus, is not in either the slates or in the California legislature, but in the FEC.
 
 
          Best,
 
          Daniel Lowenstein
          UCLA Law School
          405 Hilgard
          Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
          310-825-5148

________________________________

From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of Larry Levine
Sent: Tue 6/13/2006 3:54 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: L.A. Judicial race


Interesting to note...
RE: L.A. Times article on slate impact on judicial race:
I am the publisher of the largest slate in the state for Democrat and Independent voters. This past election we published some 842,000 pieces of slate mail in L.A. County. We turned do an offer of $25,000 from the Olson campaign because we didn't like the smell of what was going on. It's interesting that the Times reporter never attempted to contact me before writing the article. 
Also of interest is how far out of the way the reporter had to go to characterize the disclaimer as a convoluted double negative, skipping the sentence immediately preceding the "offending" sentence. That sentence states: Paid for an authorized by candidates and measures designated with an asterisk (*). 
Clearly, this article was written with the intent of hatcheting slate mail. 
Having said that, I will add that I am ashamed of some in my business who exercise little or no discretion in situations like this. They make it more difficult for those of us who try to be a bit more responsible. I was told up front the challenge to the incumbent judge was based on her "funny name" and the belief that voters would prefer someone with the name Olson to someone named Janavas. I responded immediately that I believe the incumbent was doing a good job on the bench and didn't deserve the challenge. I let the incumbent's consultant know I would be willing to carry her free on my slate if she didn't have any campaign funds. Ultimately, they said they could afford to participate at $5,000 and I accepted that. 
I know this sounds like boasting and patting my own back. It is. Because I'm proud of how I handled it. 
I know there are those out there who are using this incident to support a change in how judges are selected. Without taking a position on that matter, I would like to point out that the L.A. Times ran just two items on the several judicial races on this year's ballot. One article was devoted strictly to how difficult it is to campaign for judge and become known in so large a county. The article quoted a couple of candidates and consultants to support this premise. The other was a paragraph or two in a column that also referred to the difficulty of becoming known as a candidate for judge. Yet, in the entire election season, the Times ran no profiles on the candidates and no stories about any of the campaigns. When the pontificate about the difficulty of campaign for judge, they should look first at their own culpability. In fairness, the Times was not alone. Coverage of judicial races by the other papers in the county was equally missing.
Larry Levine