Of course, I wasn’t the one running around bragging “I’m 5 for 5″ after the election.

Having reading comprehension problems, Brian?

My opinion is that she didn’t campaign in Seatack

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.”

“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?

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.

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.

I want you to prove it or say you were wrong.

After all, it’s bad to misrepresent things in writing, isn’t it?

Talk about ethics.

Trying to trivialize the effects of the flier won’t make the ethical issue go away.

After all, that’s all that’s being investigated, right?

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.”

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.

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.

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.

And tell me – what does the Nye race have to do with this? Glen won because of a whole different set of reasons.

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?

But you have to print a lot of fliers to spend a thousand dollars.

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.

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.

Now as to whether the folks should have been voting in the first place – are you advocating a return to literacy tests?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

§ 24.2-956. Requirements for print media advertisements sponsored by a candidate campaign committee.

It shall be unlawful for any candidate or candidate campaign committee to sponsor a print media advertisement that constitutes an expenditure or contribution required to be disclosed under Chapter 9.3 (§ 24.2-945 et seq.) unless all of the following conditions are met:

1. It bears the legend or includes the statement: “Paid for by …………

—Name of candidate or campaign committee].” Alternatively, if the

advertisement is supporting a candidate who is the sponsor and the

advertisement makes no reference to any other clearly identified candidate,

then the statement “Paid for by ………… —Name of sponsor]” may be

replaced by the statement “Authorized by ………… —Name of sponsor].”

2. In an advertisement sponsored by a candidate or a candidate campaign committee that makes reference to any other clearly identified candidate who is not sponsoring the advertisement, the sponsor shall state whether it is authorized by the candidate not sponsoring the advertisement. The visual legend in the advertisement shall state either “Authorized by —Name of candidate], candidate for —Name of office]” or “Not authorized by any other candidate.” This subdivision does not apply if the sponsor of the advertisement is the candidate the advertisement supports or that candidate’s campaign committee.

3. If an advertisement is jointly sponsored, the disclosure statement shall name all the sponsors.

4. Any disclosure statement required by this section shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner.

(2002, c. 487, § 24.2-943; 2003, c. 237; 2004, cc. 55, 457; 2005, c. 369; 2006, cc. 787, 892.)

§ 24.2-955.3. Penalties for violations of this chapter.

A. Any sponsor violating Article 2 (§ 24.2-956) of this chapter shall be subject to (i) a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000; or (ii) in the case of a violation occurring within the 14 days prior to or on the election day of the election to which the advertisement pertains, a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500. In the case of a willful violation, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

B. Any sponsor violating Article 3 (§ 24.2-957 et seq.) or 4 (§ 24.2-958 et seq.) of this chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000 per occurrence; or (ii) in the case of a violation occurring within the 14 days prior to or on the election day of the election to which the advertisement pertains, a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500 per occurrence. In the case of a willful violation, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. In no event shall the total civil penalties imposed for multiple broadcasts of one particular campaign advertisement exceed $10,000.

C. Any person violating Article 5 of this chapter shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $2,500; and in the case of a willful violation, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of the provisions of Article 5 of this chapter shall not void any election.

D. It shall not be deemed a violation of this chapter if the contents of the disclosure legend or statement convey the required information.

E. Any civil penalties collected pursuant to an action under this section shall be payable to the State Treasurer for deposit to the general fund. The procedure to enforce the civil penalties provided in this section shall be as stated in § 24.2-946.3.

(2002, c. 487, §§ 24.2-943, 24.2-944; 2003, c. 237; 2004, cc. 55, 457; 2005, c. 369; 2006, cc. 787, 892.)

§ 24.2-956.1. Requirements for print media advertisements sponsored by a person or political committee, other than a candidate campaign committee.

It shall be unlawful for any person or political committee to sponsor a print media advertisement that constitutes an expenditure or contribution required to be disclosed under Chapter 9.3 (§ 24.2-945 et seq.) unless the following requirements are met:

1. It bears the legend or includes the statement: “Paid for by …………

—Name of person or political committee].”

2. In an advertisement supporting or opposing the nomination or election of one or more clearly identified candidates, the sponsor states whether it is authorized by a candidate. The visual legend in the advertisement shall state either “Authorized by —Name of candidate], candidate for —Name of office]” or “Not authorized by a candidate.”

3. In an advertisement that identifies a candidate the sponsor is opposing, the sponsor must disclose in the advertisement the name of the candidate who is intended to benefit from the advertisement, if the sponsor coordinates with, or has the authorization of, the benefited candidate.

4. If an advertisement is jointly sponsored, the disclosure statement shall name all the sponsors.

5. Any disclosure statement required by this section shall be displayed in a conspicuous manner.

(2002, c. 487, § 24.2-943; 2003, c. 237; 2004, cc. 55, 457; 2005, c. 369; 2006, cc. 787, 892.)