I’m going to claim a sick day. I’ve sniffled around for a couple of days, and today woke with a cold ensconced in my chest. Nothing life threatening, just a drag, and my brain feels like it has turned into a bran muffin.
But first…
In Maine, one of the creators of an anonymous web site set up to viciously attack a candidate for governor has been fined by the Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices.
The identities of the Web site’s creators have been shielded from public scrutiny on the grounds that they have a right to anonymous free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The Web site described them as a group of researchers, writers and journalists who were posting information about Cutler in the interests of informing voters. They also said they were not affiliated with any political campaign, were not being compensated to create the Web site and were not advocating for or against the election of any candidate.
Spencer questions all of those claims, and told the commission that the Cutler Files was the work of just two people, currently identified only as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2.
“The people involved here were members of the inner circle and an immediate family member of a political candidate and the paid political consultant to two candidates in the primary and the general election,” Spencer said. “Although they’ve told the staff that they only spent $90 on the Web site, one of them–as we understand it–tried to sell the research on which the distortions were based to another campaign for $30,000 dollars.”
Spencer says that the authors of the Cutler Files were either helping, or attempting to help, other gubernatorial political candidates and were not entitled to anonymity, or to the protection of political free speech.
More details are contained in the commission’s background materials on the agenda item.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
OK, I’ll bite.
Actually, there’s some significant differences. The authors of the political website you mention are still anonymous, maintained publishing throughout the campaign and their opponent lost.
To put this into perspective, this case involves a campaign ethics commission in Maine fining some political web blog $200. In their opinion the web blog in question skirted the legal definition of a “contribution” and should have borne a political disclaimer.
If the still anonymous blogger choses to take this to court on constitutional grounds I am confident he will win. Here’s why:
1.The first amendment to the constitution protects political speech, and more specifically, anonymous political speech. I am willing to bet that proven constitutional law, as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court, will eventually trump a local ethic board. (But, how far do you fight a $200 fine?)
2.The particular campaign ethics board that issued this fine has been repremanded by the state courts before for infringing on free speech.
3.This action appears to be brought by the losing candidate’s lawyer, so it could be construed as exactly the type of political retribution that the constitution was seeking to protect against.
4.The internet has changed the rules and wide distribution of material can be achieved, virally, at zero cost. All the old rules, including Maine’s statue 21-A are dependent on an “expenditure” on behalf of a candidate. Maine 21-A further defines this as over $100. And, the material, must advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. In Hawaii this has been interpreted as direct “vote for” or “vote against” statements, not information or issue messages. “In kind contributions” are defined by Maine’s 21-A even more archaicly as “printed material.”
So, even without examining constitution protections, the individuals in Maine didn’t meet the threshold for 21-A as written. No expenditure, as defined by Maine law, was made.
If the content of the site is, or was relevant; what did it really say?
The plaintiff’s lawyer laments the content of the offending website: “The Web site was vicious,” said Richard Spencer. “It lied about the identity of its sponsors and it contained gross distortions and misrepresentations about Eliot Cutler.”
This sounds like a standard rebuttal smoke screen.
More alarmingly, Ian Lind picks up this rhetoric and reports it as fact: “an anonymous web site set up to viciously attack a candidate for governor…”
Ian, did you see the site and report on its tone and content first hand or merely parrot the opponents colorful rebuttal? Now THAT does sound familiar.
Ian, Atomic Monkey was different in many ways. First of all it was voluntarily removed from the web. Second, I identified myself to the media voluntarily (the disclosure to Derrick DePledge was OK’d by me – I even did an interview with KITV). And Third, AM’s content fell under disproportionate and inaccurate criticism only AFTER the website was down.
I haven’t seen the Maine website, but I can vouch for the accuracy of and attribution for any statements, presented as fact, made on Atomic Monkey.
BTW: There is a lesson learnt about being vile.
Abercrombie 60%
Hannemann 38%
Hannemann lost because most of the people who voted in the primary were progressive Democrats. I’ll save my “over-the-top” adjectives until the state deficit hits $1 billion.
Just because something might be legal does not make it right.
Yes, Aaron, but the constitution says that it is my choice to publish my opinion, not yours to make for me because you may disagree with it. It really is that simple.
OK, I’ll bite.
Keith says “Hanneman lost because most of the people who voted in the primary were progressive Democrats.” If we filter this statement for political bias, either Keith’s or mine, we are left with an assertion that most of the Democratic primary voters were more progressive than Hanneman.
Hannemann knew he was running in a Democratic primary. Going in, he obviously thought he would be able to cobble together enough labor votes, “local” votes, business votes and social conservatives to win the nomination. So why did he fall short by such a large margin.
First, I think Mufi (and Norm Sakamoto, et al.,) mistakenly assumed they could get enough conservative Christian crossover votes based upon their hostility to civil unions. They failed to do so for (at least) three reasons.
1) Aiona and the GOP had stronger ties with the pastors and persuaded to keep their flocks OUT of the Dem Party primary;
2) The number of voters who passionately oppose civil unions is smaller than the “Red Shirt” crowd tried to present, numbering only about 20-25% of the voters; and
3) A lot of conservative Christian voters don’t rust Mufi, partly because he is a Mormon, which is viewed as anti-Christian by many conservatives Christians, and partly for the same reasons as everybody else: he is seen as excessively ambitious and unprincipled, from not only the left, but also from the right.
This last point is what Keith Rollman is trying to ignore with his formulation about Democratic primary voters being “progressive Democrats.” Is phrasing it this way, he wants to say Mufi was rejected for ideological reasons and not, as “No Shame” suggests, because voters reject Mufi on a personal basis, because he is seen as an amoral opportunist and bully.
Keith bears a portion of the blame for Mufi’s loss as he helped shape the negative thrust of the Mufi campain. Which turned out to be the major reason voters recoiled from Mufi and went with Neil.
Neil’s progressive political orientation was PART of his attraction. But he was also seen as a much nicer and trustworthy guy. Even by those who might disagree with him politically.
Kolea, I don’t disagree with much you just said.
Abercrombie’s group did a better job of “defining” their candidate and Mufi than vice versa.
Neil successfully sold the Obama “change” package, in spite of the fact that he spent twenty years in one of the least popular U.S. Congresses in history.
Perception is everything, reality has less and less to do with elections. Mufi isn’t really a bully, and Neil isn’t really an agent of change…but, so what?