To begin with, the group’s 8872 form lists the same P.O. Box number as the one belonging to the Admiral Roy F. Hoffmann Foundation, an organization founded by the chairman of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), Roy F. Hoffmann. For those who don’t recall, SBVT was another 527 group formed during the 2004 elections aimed at opposing Sen. John Kerry’s (D-MA) presidential bid by distorting and misrepresenting his war record.

De Posada told Talking Points Memo the address was a “mistake”: “In 2008, because the laws were so strange, we hired a political compliance company that handled our reporting and accounting.”

The connection doesn’t stop at a P.O. Box. Latinos for Reform, the Hoffmann Foundation, and SBVT have all employed the services of the same consulting firm, Political Compliance Services. Susan Arceneaux, a “long time aide of Dick Armey” heads the company. The firm markets itself as “an accounting services vendor specializing in FEC regulations. Our comprehensive approach to your individual accounting needs will deliver you from the headaches and legal ramifications of FEC non-compliance.” Latinos for Reform hasn’t filed anything with the IRS since April 2, 2009.

I am listening to a story on this on TV right now. It seems that "Latinos for Reform" is actually a Republican group, which makes their call for Latinos to not vote a bit less astounding.

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Jeff Patch <jpatch@campaignfreedom.org> wrote:

Rick refers to the message of the rejected Latinos for Reform ad, which urges Hispanics to stay home in November in protest of the Democrats’ lack of action on immigration reform, as “astounding.”

 

My interpretation of his comments is that he perceives this proposed ad campaign as “astounding” in a decidedly negative way, akin to vote suppression by passing out flyers in an African American neighborhood with the wrong Election Day listed. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I got that impression from the link he selected, which referred to the ad as an effort to “suppress the vote of various racial minorities.” Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid has also referred to the ad as “an example of “Hispanic voter suppression.” A Las Vegas-based Hispanic group claimed that “[t]hey are trying to take away our privileged right to vote through scare tactics and fear mongering.”

 

Univision, a private business, has every right to decline to air the ad, despite its dominant position in reaching Hispanic audience. A few points/questions, though:

 

(1) The group is run by prominent Hispanic conservatives who have been involved in immigration reform for years. It’s pretty hard to see some sort of a racist motive here, no?

 

(2) The premise of this ad as a voter suppression tool seems—like most efforts to characterize independent ads as somehow corrupting or nefarious—to be that Latino voters are so gullible that they can be lured by the ad’s Siren call into not voting.

 

There’s certainly no intent on the part of the ad’s critics to imply that Latinos cannot decide for themselves how to vote, but the suggestion that the ad is reprehensible implies that people are too dim to decide political matters on their own when faced with controversial—or even misleading—advertising. That strikes me as pretty condescending toward the democratic process.

 

(3) Removing a potential racial motive, this tactic  seems perfectly legitimate. I’m a libertarian. In 2008 I did not vote, partly because of an absentee ballot snafu. But I ended up not remedying the mix-up because I was frustrated with McCain’s general election campaign even after spending three months volunteering for the primary campaign in various states. As a rational person, I’m aware my vote didn’t matter, but I don’t understand why it’s illegitimate for a group to urge people to not vote if a political party or candidate fails to act on their issues.

 

Perhaps this ad would have been less controversial if it urged Hispanics to write-in someone or vote third party, but that’s a bit more of a complicated message. But, I’m wondering if Rick would feel the same way if, in 2012, NORML ran ads in California asking marijuana users not to vote because no Democrats supported Prop. 19—or is there something specifically objectionable about an ad targeting a certain ethnic constituency of voters?

 

Jeff Patch

 

From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [mailto:election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Hasen
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:11 AM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 10/19/10

October 18, 2010

"Don't Vote This November"

That's the astounding message of an ad from "Latinos for Reform." Here's an NPR story on the group from 2008. Here's the group's press release about the new ad. The most recent filing of this 527 organization is not illuminating. Here's some 2008 financial information.

Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:01 PM

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law

--
**************************************
David Epstein
Professor of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, NY 10027
212-854-7566 (W)
646-391-7733 (C)
http://www.columbia.edu/~de11
http://www.reflectivepundit.com
**************************************

_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law