[82lsju]

here the apology letter

http://news.stanford.edu/votermailer/Let...Voters.pdf

and more info on what they were trying to do

http://news.stanford.edu/votermailer/

[82lsju]

here the apology letter

http://news.stanford.edu/votermailer/Let...Voters.pdf

and more info on what they were trying to do

http://news.stanford.edu/votermailer/

[CowboyIndian]

Of course I couldn't read the article without participating in some survey, but I did manage to notice this headline/link that some here will appreciate:

Grizzly bear wounded by hunter found dead

[CowboyIndian]

Of course I couldn't read the article without participating in some survey, but I did manage to notice this headline/link that some here will appreciate:

Grizzly bear wounded by hunter found dead

[CowboyIndian]

Also...this is the sort of thing that happens when you change your name from "Indians".

[CowboyIndian]

Also...this is the sort of thing that happens when you change your name from "Indians".

[Redrum]

Had it been sent out by James Madison Univ. and without the Montana state seal,  I doubt there'd be much , or as much, fuss.  My jaded default stance regarding elections is that neither side is in favor of access to voters,  except access that has a message that they control.  A perfectly innocent survey that contains information TO the voter that has not been scrubbed for off-message content is sure to get a rise from someone who has a stake in an election.  In the Red South,  I've received surveys and questionnaires soliciting my opinion (with return address and actual places to mark down my answers) on whether schools should be allowed to go to hell in a liberal handbasket  or  can be saved by a return to classic Madisonian Constitutionalism. That's a sort-of mashup fictive example that is true to the tone of these mailings. 

[Redrum]

Had it been sent out by James Madison Univ. and without the Montana state seal,  I doubt there'd be much , or as much, fuss.  My jaded default stance regarding elections is that neither side is in favor of access to voters,  except access that has a message that they control.  A perfectly innocent survey that contains information TO the voter that has not been scrubbed for off-message content is sure to get a rise from someone who has a stake in an election.  In the Red South,  I've received surveys and questionnaires soliciting my opinion (with return address and actual places to mark down my answers) on whether schools should be allowed to go to hell in a liberal handbasket  or  can be saved by a return to classic Madisonian Constitutionalism. That's a sort-of mashup fictive example that is true to the tone of these mailings. 

[washingtonismoney]

I think the brouhaha is understandable and pretty legitimate. Researchers have become very sensitive -- and justifiably so, given the historical antics their predecessors have managed to get into -- about the perception of improperly influencing human behavior. Just look at the fuss the Facebook study kicked up.

Even the slightest hint of influencing an election is going to get you into trouble if you do it wrong. I'm not an expert in poli sci research but this seems like a "duh" to me.

[washingtonismoney]

I think the brouhaha is understandable and pretty legitimate. Researchers have become very sensitive -- and justifiably so, given the historical antics their predecessors have managed to get into -- about the perception of improperly influencing human behavior. Just look at the fuss the Facebook study kicked up.

Even the slightest hint of influencing an election is going to get you into trouble if you do it wrong. I'm not an expert in poli sci research but this seems like a "duh" to me.

[burger]

I live in Montana (as of recently), and this has been a big story in the media here.  I see two issues:

1) The researchers put the seal of the great state of Montana on the mailer, which gave it a false sense of being official.

2) They sent the mailer to 100,000 voters, which is ~15% of all registered voters and more than enough to swing an election in a state that is has a roughly even split of Republicans and Democrats.  I'm a big supporter of research designed to figure out the best ways to get people to vote, but those experiments should not change the outcomes of elections.  100,000 voters in California would have been one half of one percent of the electorate.  Try a bigger state next time, guys.

[burger]

I live in Montana (as of recently), and this has been a big story in the media here.  I see two issues:

1) The researchers put the seal of the great state of Montana on the mailer, which gave it a false sense of being official.

2) They sent the mailer to 100,000 voters, which is ~15% of all registered voters and more than enough to swing an election in a state that is has a roughly even split of Republicans and Democrats.  I'm a big supporter of research designed to figure out the best ways to get people to vote, but those experiments should not change the outcomes of elections.  100,000 voters in California would have been one half of one percent of the electorate.  Try a bigger state next time, guys.

[washingtonismoney]

This doesn't look great: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/stanford...t-crowdpac

[washingtonismoney]

This doesn't look great: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/stanford...t-crowdpac

[CTcard]

Is there anything illegal here?

I could see how this might violate Stanford's own codes of research conduct. Also I could imagine some troubles if it were on a federal grant - which apparently it was not.
I haven't seen an article that spelled out what might be illegal. Perhaps fraudulent use of the state seal?

[CTcard]

Is there anything illegal here?

I could see how this might violate Stanford's own codes of research conduct. Also I could imagine some troubles if it were on a federal grant - which apparently it was not.
I haven't seen an article that spelled out what might be illegal. Perhaps fraudulent use of the state seal?

[washingtonismoney]

Is there anything illegal here?

I could see how this might violate Stanford's own codes of research conduct. Also I could imagine some troubles if it were on a federal grant - which apparently it was not.
I haven't seen an article that spelled out what might be illegal. Perhaps fraudulent use of the state seal?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/montana-...professors

[washingtonismoney]

Is there anything illegal here?

I could see how this might violate Stanford's own codes of research conduct. Also I could imagine some troubles if it were on a federal grant - which apparently it was not.
I haven't seen an article that spelled out what might be illegal. Perhaps fraudulent use of the state seal?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/montana-...professors

[Redrum]

When I finally saw the real poll mailer I have to agree more with WIM.  It "looks" like a campaign mailer, not a research poll.  I can imagine some reasons why they chose that format and "look",  but it was just asking for trouble. The logic must have been that real vote count in a real election is the only trustworthy measurement in the field of politics.  Not limited by number of voters returning/ not returning a questionnaire.   

The further revelations about the CrowdPac also look bad,  although the anticipated defense will be that  Academic / private sector "cooperation" with all the necessary blurring of lines is the new model for academic research in all sorts of fields.

[Redrum]

When I finally saw the real poll mailer I have to agree more with WIM.  It "looks" like a campaign mailer, not a research poll.  I can imagine some reasons why they chose that format and "look",  but it was just asking for trouble. The logic must have been that real vote count in a real election is the only trustworthy measurement in the field of politics.  Not limited by number of voters returning/ not returning a questionnaire.   

The further revelations about the CrowdPac also look bad,  although the anticipated defense will be that  Academic / private sector "cooperation" with all the necessary blurring of lines is the new model for academic research in all sorts of fields.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=11019.msg103998#msg103998 date=1414769432]
Is there anything illegal here?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/montana-...professors
[/quote]

Thanks for the link.
It appears there are four legal complaints:

1. violating the code that prohibits use of any 'fraudulent contrivance' to compel anyone to vote a certain way.
2. violating a code that prohibits one from disseminating misleading information about election procedures.
3. not registering with the Commissioner when engaging in political activities.
4. impersonating a public servant.

#1 and #4 appear to be using the seal of the state of Montana - which I guess by itself isn't illegal since it's not listed in the complaint.
On #2 I'm not sure what the procedures referred to are - probably something about a non-partisan election.
#3 might be a difficult judgement call.

It does seem the primary issues are those arising from the use of the seal.

[CTcard]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=11019.msg103998#msg103998 date=1414769432]
Is there anything illegal here?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/montana-...professors
[/quote]

Thanks for the link.
It appears there are four legal complaints:

1. violating the code that prohibits use of any 'fraudulent contrivance' to compel anyone to vote a certain way.
2. violating a code that prohibits one from disseminating misleading information about election procedures.
3. not registering with the Commissioner when engaging in political activities.
4. impersonating a public servant.

#1 and #4 appear to be using the seal of the state of Montana - which I guess by itself isn't illegal since it's not listed in the complaint.
On #2 I'm not sure what the procedures referred to are - probably something about a non-partisan election.
#3 might be a difficult judgement call.

It does seem the primary issues are those arising from the use of the seal.

[82 Card]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11019.msg104001#msg104001 date=1414770455]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=11019.msg103998#msg103998 date=1414769432]
Is there anything illegal here?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/montana-...professors
[/quote]

Thanks for the link.
It appears there are four legal complaints:

1. violating the code that prohibits use of any 'fraudulent contrivance' to compel anyone to vote a certain way.
2. violating a code that prohibits one from disseminating misleading information about election procedures.
3. not registering with the Commissioner when engaging in political activities.
4. impersonating a public servant.

#1 and #4 appear to be using the seal of the state of Montana - which I guess by itself isn't illegal since it's not listed in the complaint.
On #2 I'm not sure what the procedures referred to are - probably something about a non-partisan election.
#3 might be a difficult judgement call.

It does seem the primary issues are those arising from the use of the seal.
[/quote]

1 actually includes fraudulently inducing someone to vote or not vote. The only thing they could really say is fraudulent is using the state seal. It's a bit of a stretch to say it's fraud. The mailer clearly states that it's from researchers with an address in California.

Don't see how this could possibly be 2. The mailer doesn't make representations about election procedure (unless they are stretching "take this with you").

3 is a possibility. They probably didn't register. Whether this is political activity would depend on the definitions in the statute. "Social welfare" organizations do this all the time without being declared political under federal law. However, state law may be different.

4 is a stretch. Although they should not have used the state seal, the mailer clearly discloses that it's from Stanford and Dartmouth researchers. I don't think that a reasonable person would be fooled. Of course I'm the type who goes first to the funding line whenever I get something that looks vaguely political. The typical person may not read it that way.

[82 Card]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=11019.msg104001#msg104001 date=1414770455]
[quote author=CTcard link=topic=11019.msg103998#msg103998 date=1414769432]
Is there anything illegal here?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/montana-...professors
[/quote]

Thanks for the link.
It appears there are four legal complaints:

1. violating the code that prohibits use of any 'fraudulent contrivance' to compel anyone to vote a certain way.
2. violating a code that prohibits one from disseminating misleading information about election procedures.
3. not registering with the Commissioner when engaging in political activities.
4. impersonating a public servant.

#1 and #4 appear to be using the seal of the state of Montana - which I guess by itself isn't illegal since it's not listed in the complaint.
On #2 I'm not sure what the procedures referred to are - probably something about a non-partisan election.
#3 might be a difficult judgement call.

It does seem the primary issues are those arising from the use of the seal.
[/quote]

1 actually includes fraudulently inducing someone to vote or not vote. The only thing they could really say is fraudulent is using the state seal. It's a bit of a stretch to say it's fraud. The mailer clearly states that it's from researchers with an address in California.

Don't see how this could possibly be 2. The mailer doesn't make representations about election procedure (unless they are stretching "take this with you").

3 is a possibility. They probably didn't register. Whether this is political activity would depend on the definitions in the statute. "Social welfare" organizations do this all the time without being declared political under federal law. However, state law may be different.

4 is a stretch. Although they should not have used the state seal, the mailer clearly discloses that it's from Stanford and Dartmouth researchers. I don't think that a reasonable person would be fooled. Of course I'm the type who goes first to the funding line whenever I get something that looks vaguely political. The typical person may not read it that way.

[82 Card]

I suspect that the real objection is the treatment of justices as the politicians that they are. By placing the candidates on a spectrum with well known partisans, the mailer puts a dent in the phony non-partisanship.

[82 Card]

I suspect that the real objection is the treatment of justices as the politicians that they are. By placing the candidates on a spectrum with well known partisans, the mailer puts a dent in the phony non-partisanship.

[burger]

I suspect that the real objection is the treatment of justices as the politicians that they are. By placing the candidates on a spectrum with well known partisans, the mailer puts a dent in the phony non-partisanship.

Partisanship isn't the issue.  Every judge has his or her own beliefs, and those have to fall somewhere on the ideological spectrum.

The real issue is changing your voting habits to suit your donors: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/c...aign-cash/

(Of course, the idea that even non-elected judges are impartial is a joke.  If you're ever trying to get parole, make sure you see the judge first thing in the morning: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...-judgment/)

[burger]

I suspect that the real objection is the treatment of justices as the politicians that they are. By placing the candidates on a spectrum with well known partisans, the mailer puts a dent in the phony non-partisanship.

Partisanship isn't the issue.  Every judge has his or her own beliefs, and those have to fall somewhere on the ideological spectrum.

The real issue is changing your voting habits to suit your donors: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/c...aign-cash/

(Of course, the idea that even non-elected judges are impartial is a joke.  If you're ever trying to get parole, make sure you see the judge first thing in the morning: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/0...-judgment/)