On Friday 02/10/12, Carolyn Wright (manager of the Main Street Cafe) posted an email saying that the organizer of the event, Russ Harris (publisher of The Groton Herald) had cancelled the fund raiser. -- A.C.
Dear Editor,
I believe that the two recent advertisements for the Elizabeth Warren fundraiser in The Groton Herald – with their very unusual disclaimer statement – are in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, section 441d (on page 84 of the PDF). My understanding of that law is that anonymously sponsored and financed political ads for the purpose of raising funds (or any other advocacy) for the election of a candidate to Federal office are prohibited.
The price of participation in the political process is transparency. If the supporters of Elizabeth Warren wish to remain anonymous, then they will have to forgo the use of paid ads in the public media.
Sincerely yours,
Brooks Lyman
(11 votes, average: 4.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Related posts:
Brooks – Because I do not subscribe to the Herald, I was not aware this fundraiser was taking place. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I will be sure to go. Looks like it will be fun!
Most sincerely, Virginia Wood
Now Virginia, it’s not nice to tease your cousin, Brooks!
Well Brooks I must say that I agree with you on this one.
well here we go again another round of illegal activity in Groton, MA. Don’t you people get sick and tired of being the talk of the state?
Campaign finance laws are complicated and not everyone is aware that they must add a disclaimer of who paid for the ad or if it’s approved by the campaign. It’s a common political novice mistake. I’m fairly certain Elizabeth Warren’s campaign is unaware of this ad. The hosts’ should have worked with the campaign in arranging the event. It’s obvious they did not.
I don’t believe that the Groton Herald, or any other newspaper, should be responsible for enforcing election laws. I am surprised, however, that they allowed this advertisement to run. In my limited experience writing letters to the editor I found them to be very sensitive to the content of my letters. In particular I recall a letter that I wrote durng the campaign of Republican Nancy Achin Sullivan for State Senate back in 1990. In the letter I referenced that our then current State Senator, Paul Sheehy, had served eighteen months in prison for bank fraud. This was not exactly a secret, but the Herald saw fit to remove the reference from my letter.
Based on the link provided by Brooks it would certainly seem that there is a problem here.
I do find it a little humorous that people fundraising for the candidate who clearly is for larger federal government and the associated intrusion upon said government’s citizen’s affairs find themselves tangled in and afoul of government regulations similar to those for which their candidate so proudly advocates. Ironic.
As a former newspaper editor, I can tell you that any newspaper worth its salt that accepts a political advertisement does so knowing the rules of disclosure and abides by them. The Groton Herald should have made sure the appropriate disclosure was made by the person buying the ad.
And in response to Mr. Slaney: leave it to the people who oppose government regulation to find it advantageous to use it to their political advantage. Since you so clearly oppose government “intrusion upon said government’s citizen’s affairs,” aren’t you hypocritical to utilize said government’s regulations if they play to your political advantage?
Jim,
Paul Slaney may prefer to have less government and fewer laws, but I suspect that he would agree that we should all obey the laws that we have, and if we are unhappy with them, to make use of the legislative and legal processes to change or nullify them.
So if one political party or it’s candidates and their supporters attempts to evade the law, Mr. Slaney is certainly correct in calling them to account. The point of the political campaign laws is to make sure that everyone is playing by the same rules on as level a playing field as possible consonant with our freedom.
On the other hand, as he points out, the party in question – the Democrats – have certainly been assiduously piling up intrusive and often unnecessary laws and regulations on the people of this nation. So his schadenfreude in this case is certainly understandable and excusable.
Your characterization of “often unnecessary laws and regulations of the people” is strictly your opinion. Personally, I like clean air, clean water, safe homes and buildings, healthy food, competent medical professionals, passable roads, national security, and all of the other things you take for granted that are the result of “laws and regulations.” And if you and Mr. Slaney are so opposed to campaign finance laws, then you shouldn’t cite them in order to attack your political opponents. No matter how you slice it, that’s hypocrisy.
Mr. O’Reilly,
What an interesting series of strawmen you use in your posts. Let’s start with the first one where you out right state that I oppose government regulation, I never said that, nor did I imply that and nothing could be further from the truth. Then in your response to Mr. Lyman you imply that because we don’t agree with you we are against: “clean air, clean water, safe homes and buildings, healthy food, competent medical professionals, passable roads, national security, and all of the other things you take for granted….”. Well, Mr. O’Reilly, you are once again wrong. Is you position so weak that you must resort to such over the top misrepresentation to justify yourself?
Finally, I fail to see the hypocrisy in pointing out liberals, the “do as I say, not as I do people”, caught up in the regulations for which they always seem to stump. A much better example of hypocrisy is demanding more regulation then getting ensnared by them through either ignorance or apathy. To be honest with you, I expect better from newspaper editors…
Jim,
Paul Slaney pretty much says it all in his post. We are not against all government regulation, just unnecessary government regulation that serves only to stifle freedom and enterprise and gives the government more power over us without making any necessary or significant contribution to our well-being and our environment. As one of the founders said, “if men were angels, we would not need government.” There’s a continuum there, and by the evidence of your post, you need a lot of government….
And apparently, according to you and Mr. Slaney, campaign finance laws are an example of “unnecessary regulation.” Having been at one point in my professional life charged with explaining the state’s campaign finance laws to people, I can tell you unequivocally that these laws are necessary to ensure transparency and accountability in political campaigns. And, in my opinion, whomever violates a regulation should be subject to the consequences, regardless of political ideology.
And, Mr. Slaney, if you want to refer to “resort[ing] to such over the top misrepresentation to justify yourself,” how about starting with your statement that “liberals” are “do as I say, not as I do people” who get “caught up in the regulations for which they always seem to stump.” Really? And let’s recall that this string started because you turned a mistake by the Groton Herald regarding a political campaign event – a mistake which, by the way, I agreed with you on – into a rant about “the candidate who clearly is for larger federal government and the associated intrusion upon said government’s citizen’s affairs find[ing] themselves (sic) tangled in and afoul of government regulations similar to those for which their candidate so proudly advocates.”
To be honest, I’d expect better from someone posting on the Groton Line…
Whoa, there, Jim!
Just where did either Paul Slaney or myself state or imply that campaign finance laws are unnecessary? There are literally tons of government regulations out there. Many (most?) of them we would be better off without. Campaign finance laws are not one of those, and neither Slaney nor myself implied or stated that.
Regarding liberals being “do as I say, not as I do” people who get “caught up in the regulations for which they always seem to stump:” Yes, really. Russ Harris admitted in print that he got caught up in the campaign finance law – that he made a mistake.
While I am a bit shocked that the Groton Herald, which always made very sure that MY political ads contained the proper disclaimer language, would slip up on a political endeavor of its own editor, mistakes do happen. That doesn’t mean that it’s somehow improper for me to bring this point to people’s attention or for others – very possibly for political reasons – to take advantage of Russ Harris’ blunder. Hey, that’s politics. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!
And perhaps we need a bit more attention being paid to various mistakes and deliberate contraventions of law and custom and decency on the part of the Democrats. Has anyone noticed, that when a Democrat politician gets into trouble, whether graft and corruption or cheating on his wife, that all the other Democrats give him a pass, and all the Republicans politely cluck their tongues and nothing more? But when a Republican Politician transgresses, it’s front page news in the New York Times and Boston Globe, with calls for investigations, trial, impeachment, etc. Maybe it’s time for “no more Mr. Nice Guy.” Maybe it’s time for Republicans to publicly point it out, hammer and tongs, when their Democrat opponents turn out to have feet of clay and their hand in the till or on the scales.
You can’t control yourself can you Mr O’Reilly? As Mr Lyman explained, nowhere did I say campaign finance law is an example of unnecessary regulation. Another strawman……
While I can see you being irritated with my comments about liberals and with my description of how I see Ms Warren, you certainly can’t be making the argument my comments rise to the level of putting words into your mouth as you attempt to do with Mr Lyman and me?
To be honest with you, I really don’t know what to expect any more.