The Oberndorf campaign for mayor in Virginia Beach has filed a formal complaint in regards to the distribution of fliers showing now mayor-elect Will Sessoms and president-elect Obama.
Bruce Williams, a consultant who was hired to help the Sessoms campaign with black voters, said this week that he didn’t ask for permission to hand out the fliers.
“I’ve already gotten beaten up on this,” Williams said.
He said he didn’t know who had paid for the fliers. Somebody stopped him when he was checking on polling sites before the election and gave him the boxes containing the fliers, Williams said.
The fliers have provided fodder for bloggers and politicos in the weeks after the election.
It made Carlos Michael Segarra, a student at Norfolk State and a poll worker for Sessoms, uncomfortable. Segarra said he and a few of his fraternity brothers were recruited to work in black precincts.
Segarra said he handed out a few of those fliers on Election Day, but then, “we felt really weird and put them back in the car …. “
Segarra said he received the fliers during a training session the night before the election at the Williams Mullen law firm in Town Center, where Sessoms supporter and former Councilman William Harrison is a partner.
Segarra said poll workers were given three fliers, including the Sessoms-Obama one, and instructed to give the flier to black voters.
And based on my analysis, those fliers cost Oberndorf the election.
From what I’ve been told, Commonwealth’s Attorney Harvey Bryant had a meeting with members of the Oberndorf campaign and several others. Bryant’s office has promised to look into the situation, and said if the evidence warranted it, he would ask for a special prosecutor to be named. Supposedly, there is some provision that would allow the perpetrator to be charged with a class 1 misdemeanor, which is said to carry jail time. (Anyone know of the section this case would fall under?)
We need to keep watching this, folks.
h/t spotter
44 Comments
So, what was the “formal complaint?”
You’ll have to ask Bryant’s office about that. I was only made aware of the meeting.
Forgot one:
Of course, the State Board says a disclosure is not required by “An Individual who makes Independent Expenditures of less than $1,000 for a single candidate in a single election cycle”
And you know they spent less than $1,000 because….?
What makes you think these are independent expenditures? They came in boxes and were provided to paid campaign workers for Will Sessoms at Williams Mullen during a scheduled training.
I don’t know. But you have to print a lot of fliers to spend a thousand dollars.
I’m just remembering the first amendment about free speech and expecting those who want to throw the baby out with the bath water to be consistent.
If we convicted every politician who “misleads” in advertising, Obama will have a short tenure in the White House.
If they came from the candidate, which they almost certainly did since they were provided by paid campaign staff in boxes to paid campaign workers at a scheduled training at the Williams Mullen law firm, there is no “$1000 limit.” They were part of an organized candidate campaign that spent a lot more than that.
This is not a First Amendment issue. The campaign laws require whoever authorized and paid for this message to disclose that fact. It’s a valid time, place, and manner restriction that has been upheld by the courts.
The voters can judge whether they accept or reject the message. The law simply requires that they be informed who paid for it.
The requirement is intended to avoid sleazy scenes like Will Sessoms’ unconvincing denial that his campaign had anything to do with this. Like any candidate for public office, he can say what he wants, others can say what they want on his behalf, but under the law voters are entitled to know who said it.
That’s very different than trying to tell citizens what they can or cannot wear when they line up to vote for the candidates who seek the opportunity to serve them.
If the campaign paid for and authorized the flyer without Sessoms’ knowledge, the campaign is culpable.
But let’s get serious. It’s not the disclaimer that Oberndorf’s upset about. It’s the message. Vivian’s comments and Louisa Strayhorn’s quotes in the article say as much.
If Sessoms’ campaign forgot a disclaimer on some innocuous brochure (and believe me - that happens a lot…Scott Taylor), would there be all this attention?
The bottom line though is that at most a fine will be levied, but the election will not be voided.
Sessom’s campaign has plenty of money for fines, so the worst case penalty will still be insignificant as a deterrent to future misconduct.
The only real way to change things is for voters to reject any candidate running with a half million dollars of special interest money. Informed voters are the only real deterrent to this kind of chicanery.
Yes, it’s the message of the fliers, a message that was designed to imply that Sessoms supported Obama and vice versa, when that was NOT the case.
The law (written by politicians for the benefit of politicians) does not consider the effects of this and only looks at the technical aspects, in this case, the failure to provide a disclaimer. The law (written by politicians for the benefit of politicians) actually encourages bad behavior.
And Don, I agree that informed voters are the key. But as long as the MSM is in bed with the politicians, the average voter has one heck of a time sorting out truth from spin.
There are things that are illegal but not necessarily morally wrong.
There are things that are morally wrong but not necessarily illegal.
And there are things that are both morally wrong and illegal.
In this case, the flier is morally wrong because it’s deliberately misleading and inaccurate. It’s also illegal because it doesn’t disclose who authorized or paid for it.
Those are separate but interrelated concepts. No doubt the authors of this flier decided to violate the disclosure law because they didn’t want to be held accountable for its misleading, inaccurate message.
Yes, they have a First Amendment right to spread their misleading message. And Vivian and Louisa Strayhorn and Meyera Oberndorf have a First Amendment right to point out that it is misleading and wrong.
And the public has a right to expect that the disclosure law will be enforced, regardless of the content of this sleazy little tract.
And hopefully the voters will remember this and hold Will Sessoms accountable for his campaign’s sleazeball behavior.
What? One flyer threw the election? If the voters voted based on a single flyer perhaps they should not have been voting in the first place.
LD - when the numbers are as small as they are, of course one flier could throw the election. We are not talking about tens of thousands of votes. We are talking about roughly 3,500 votes. And if you look at my analysis, it appears the fliers resulted in about 5,000 votes for Sessoms.
Now as to whether the folks should have been voting in the first place - are you advocating a return to literacy tests?
Here’s how you find out who did it - filter for Republicans who are fans of The Wire *and* have a facility with graphic design. Max five people in the city, I bet.
So, someone remind me, who was that Dem politician from Norfolk who photoshopped George Allen into his brochure? Howard somebody? Was in the House of Delegates.
Wow. I’ve not heard that story before. But I found a reference to it. It was Howard Copeland in his 1995 race against Thelma Drake. (Copeland lost.)
Vivian,
No I am not advocating a return to literacy tests.
I’m just saying that every voter should have been giving more thought to who they were going to vote for. If they are so uninformed that a single flier sways their vote perhaps they should have put a little more thought into it ahead of time. If they are indeed that ill informed they should have abstained.
I am not asking them to do more then I myself was willing to do. I abstained from the mayoral and city council elections because I did not consider myself informed enough.
An alternative, if they were unable to keep up on all the elections themselves, would have been for them to consult with someone they trust who was better informed.
I missed this earlier:
Somewhere around 5,000, I’d bet
LD - last time I checked, something like 14% of voters make up their minds at the polls. That’s not to say they are not informed, only that they make up their minds then. So perhaps they couldn’t decide between the two and the flier was the tipping point.
Or maybe they weren’t well-informed. Does that mean that they should be allowed to be misled?
And a lot of people don’t vote downticket. But every candidate further down on the ballot tries very hard to convince them to do so.
Vivian,
The flier was wrong.
However I have trouble accepting your analysis that the fliers caused Meyera to lose the election as being accurate.
Perhaps I have too much faith in the electorate? But if the electorate are that bad, how do you explain Glenn Nye’s victory?
Show me a fallacy in my analysis. For that matter, run the numbers yourself. The numbers don’t lie.
And tell me - what does the Nye race have to do with this? Glen won because of a whole different set of reasons.
Perhaps if they were that “misled” by a single flier they would have been “led” by other campaign advertisements.
If they were so ill informed that a single flier could affect their vote then even one radio add could have influenced them.
I am hoping Glenn Nye won not just because he was the Democrat. I think his considerable majority reflects more then that, the voters did not decide at the last minute.
Where’s the logic in that, LD? Do you have specific knowledge of a targeted radio ad or other targeted advertising? Perhaps you are not aware of the way advertising is targeted to certain audiences.
Have you looked at the numbers yourself? Did you see, for example, Seatack, where Obama beat McCain by nearly a 2:1 margin, Georgia Allen beat Rosemary Wilson by almost 2:1 and Sessoms beat Oberndorf, 807 to 564? You think a radio ad did that?
No, it was the flier, which specifically tied Sessoms to Obama.
And I said before - this isn’t about Nye. There are other reasons (his being a Democrat is one of them) for his win.
And Seatack is the precinct that just happened to open late.
Those figures are pretty persuasive, Vivian.
On a more fundamental level, think about it. If the Sessoms campaign and the people at the Williams Mullen law firm didn’t think the fliers would make a difference, why did they issue and distribute them in the first place? Obviously, they believed the fliers would influence certain targeted voters, or they would not have bothered.
We can argue after the fact as to how much influence the illegal fliers had, but that’s really beside the point. Sessoms must have thought they would do the trick, or he wouldn’t have used the fliers.
MB said:
“Here’s how you find out who did it - filter for Republicans who are fans of The Wire *and* have a facility with graphic design. Max five people in the city, I bet.”
Hmmm.
http://www.abrucewilliams.com/OurStaff.html
Do you think this guy has a facility for graphic design, or do you think some mysterious stranger just happened to hand him a bunch of boxes of these fliers, which he inadvertently used without thinking? And accidentally instructed NSU students to hand out to black voters in black precincts? Remember, though, he’s “already gotten beaten up on this.”
Vivian,
I can point to one targeted add that came close to convincing me to vote for Meyera (it was not successful, I still abstained). I do not listen to the media outlets that would have been used to target the precincts you mention, so I can not point to an example. Most times my radio is tuned to NPR (National Public Radio). However Sessoms seemed to have ample funds to engage in targeted campaigning.
If somebody or some group faults the Seatack community with how they voted, perhaps they should increase their efforts within that community to educate them ahead of the game next time.
LD - I’m not sure that you know what the word “targeted” means in this case.
Nevertheless, I guess in some ways it is refreshing that you still think that our political system is pure and not as corrupt as it is. A naive position, but refreshing nonetheless.
Rare is the case where campaign shenanigans such as these can be tied directly to results. Most of the time, such acts happen earlier in the campaign, which don’t allow for a direct analysis of their effects.
The sad part of all of this is that Sessoms could have won this election without engaging in such tactics. Instead his win is forever tainted by them.
As for educating, well, that’s what I said in my original piece. But the harsh truth is that keeping people ignorant of the facts is a well-used campaign tactic.
Vivian,
OK, I am naive.
In being naive, I am going to rejoice in Glenn Nye’s win. Seems Glenn Nye was able to win in Seatack. Get my point?
I appreciate you find my naivety amusing.
Actually, I don’t find it amusing, and I have no idea why you thought I did.
And no, I don’t get your point on Seatack since Glenn Nye’s win there had nothing to do with the contents of this thread.
I wonder how many people voted based on whether there was a disclaimer used in the flier.
After all, that’s all that’s being investigated, right?
Is the Sessom campaign still paying you, Brian? The legal issue may be the disclaimer but the ethical issue is a much bigger problem.
Trying to trivialize the effects of the flier won’t make the ethical issue go away.
Still paying me? Are you honestly writing that on the internet?
Talk about ethics.
V., you know what they say about pig wrestling. You get dirty, and the pig just likes it.
Good point, MB. Of course, I wasn’t the one running around bragging “I’m 5 for 5″ after the election.
C’mon, Vivian. You made a claim in writing that Will Sessoms paid me.
I want you to prove it or say you were wrong.
After all, it’s bad to misrepresent things in writing, isn’t it?
Is the Sessom campaign still paying you, Brian? The legal issue may be the disclaimer but the ethical issue is a much bigger problem.
Trying to trivialize the effects of the flier won’t make the ethical issue go away.
Given what goes on in campaigns at all levels, this “controversy” strikes me as pretty thin gruel. This is what politics is anymore.
This dustup is so minor that even inter-blogger accusations of “who’s paying whom” are more noteworthy.
What a surprise. No comment from Vivian about her own misrepresentations.
Vivian,
If Meyera had run a better campaign in Seatack she would have won the votes.
My opinion is that she didn’t campaign in Seatack (and her name was not already not enough known) because she didn’t offer enough to Seatack.
Perhaps the uneducated voters of Seatack didn’t know who to vote for? Perhaps neither candidate offered a clear choice of who should get the vote?
Are we going to continue to allow these people to vote? Just wondering what you have to say about it. Are you in favor of literacy tests?
They voted. In accordance with their vote Sessoms won. If they do not like who won they have no one but themselves to blame.
“Are we going to continue to allow these people to vote?”
“These people?!”
There are plenty of educated and uneducated voters on both sides, Lil. I would certainly not assume that all Republicans could pass a literacy test (if it were legal, which it isn’t).
Sessoms won, but he cheated. He’s still the Mayor-elect, but he cheated. The fact that a former elected official, vice mayor, and president of a local bank, as well as the local branch of a supposedly professional law firm, with over $600,000 to burn, believed that they had to cheat and stoop to illegal fliers and misinforming and miseducating voters in order to win should tell you how little confidence they had in the merits of their position. It should also tell you a lot about their personal ethics and morals, or more accurately, lack thereof.
Are we going to continue to allow these people to continue to cheat?
Or are we going to put a stop to it?
Well you are entitled to your opinion but do you have any facts to back this up?
And truly - it says a whole lot about you to refer to anyone as “these people.”
It’s so fun when Vivian says something she can’t back up, and she can’t bring herself to apologize.
Having reading comprehension problems, Brian?
Doesn’t mean the Mayor’s race was one of them.
4 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] The Well-Traveled Low Road Posted on November 29, 2008 by vagreatblueheron It’s only a flier. [...]
[...] your civic knowledge The comment by LittleDavid reminded me about the civic quiz that has been making the rounds. The quiz is here. [...]
[...] Williams Mullen, emerged as the centerpoint of a scandal in which Will’s campaign is under criminal investigation for distributing illegal fliers that may have thrown the Virginia Beach mayoral [...]
[...] brings me to the second issue. Funny but I don’t see any payments to the poll workers. And we know they worked and were paid. Is that another $100 [...]
Post a Comment