Oregon GOP firm implicated in anti-Mormon calls in New Hampshire

In New Hampshire, there's been an ongoing controversy about some anti-Mormon, anti-Romney phone calls that were made in November 2007.

Whether or not the calls were "push polls" as some have alleged, the New Hampshire Attorney General is demanding information about the source of the calls. And the NH AG has now determined that the calls were produced by Moore Information - a GOP polling operation in Portland. It's still unclear who their client was.

From the AG's press release:

Attorney General Kelly A. Ayotte is requesting the public’s assistance in identifying who employed Moore-Information of Portland, Oregon to conduct a poll in New Hampshire, in November 2007, which has been alleged to be a push-poll. New Hampshire’s voters deserve to know whether any candidate in our Presidential Primary violated New Hampshire’s push-poll statute.

On Friday, November 16, 2007, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office received complaints from both Mitt Romney for President, Inc., and John McCain 2008, Inc., alleging that an illegal push-poll was being conducted in New Hampshire, contrary to New Hampshire RSA 664:2, XVII and RSA 664:16-a. As a result of these complaints, this Office commenced an investigation.

New Hampshire law requires an entity making a push poll call to provide a phone number from where the poll is conducted and to inform the person polled that the call is being made on behalf of, in support of, or in opposition to a particular candidate, and to name that candidate. RSA 664:16-a. A call is a push-poll only if:

1. The call is on behalf of, in support of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office;

2. The recipient is asked questions relative to opposing candidates which state, imply, or convey information about the candidate’s character, status, record, or political stance; and

3. The call is conducted in a manner likely to be construed by the voter to be a survey or poll to gather statistical data for entities that are independent of any political party, candidate, or interest group.

There's more at TPM Election Central - who wonders if the Romney campaign engineered the calls.

Apparently Moore Information is dragging its feet and asking for more time before it coughs up info the AG wants that could help her track down the sponsor of the calls. And this info looks like it won't be forthcoming until safely after the January 8th New Hampshire primary.

Had the identity of the sponsor of the calls become known in time, it could have had a big influence on the primary's outcome. Some have charged that John McCain's camp is behind them; others have wondered whether someone connected with Romney himself might have done them, to test anti-Mormon messages or diffuse the Mormon issue by airing it publicly.

According to the AG's release Moore Information outsourced the job to Western Wats, the firm that actually made the calls -- and Wats was tied to Romney in various ways, giving weight to the theory that Romney himself was behind the calls.

Discuss.

  • JTT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    This post really didn't interest me at first, until I read the New Hampshire code quoted above with the definition of push polling. I'm having a hard time understanding how poll questions (as a part of a candidate's benchmark poll) that test an opponent's negatives would not be considered "push polling" under NH's definition.

    To me there is a clear difference between polling an opponent's negatives (push questions) and push polling. One is an essential campaign tool for testing messages and strategy, the other is a sleazy, end-of-cycle (usually anonymous) smear that deserves no place in the process. Am I missing something here?

  • (Show?)

    Yeah, JTT... the language defining a push-poll call seems especially loose. But note that they don't ban push-poll calls here.

    Rather:

    New Hampshire law requires an entity making a push poll call to provide a phone number from where the poll is conducted and to inform the person polled that the call is being made on behalf of, in support of, or in opposition to a particular candidate, and to name that candidate.

    It appears that that's the problem here. A failure to disclose.

    Which is sort of the point. If you were doing a legit poll, you'd be happy to allow caller-id to see your number and be happy to disclose the client.

  • Mike Riley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I’d love it if the AG would release the list of questions.

    Another indicator of the nefarious type of push-poll is the sample size. A legitimate poll may have but several hundred interviews, while a promotional smear effort would have to reach thousands or tens of thousands of voters to be effective.

    It’s also possible that Romney could be asking the negative questions, not to drum up sympathy, but to have a more sober understanding of the potential impact, if the other Republicans resort to negative ads.

  • lin qiao (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The Huffington Post website today (Jan. 5) is attributing the phone poll to Ron Paul.

  • meckel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    These are all called double blind surveys. The client never knows who the responder is (except for all the data!) and the responder does not know who the client is. There is no way that a campaign is going to identify itself if it wants to conduct unclouded research.

  • meckel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    These are all called double blind surveys. The client never knows who the responder is (except for all the data!) and the responder does not know who the client is. There is no way that a campaign is going to identify itself if it wants to conduct unclouded research.

in the news

connect with blueoregon