Carla-

You left out the rest of the blog post that talks about how the LWV were fine with this tactic when it was used on something they agree with. From the WW blog:

"Nelson says he’s read the complaint and is bemused by it. “It’s interesting that when we are on the same side of the campaign against term limits [2006], the League of Women Voters didn’t object to my using a similar ballot then,” Nelson says. “It was just fine then. But now it’s not.'"

There is a lot to like about LWV on this. In fact I really like both of their faces...

So this is an attempt to confuse voters, but when the YES campaign put arguments FOR the measures in the section of the voter guide for arguments AGAINST - that is "free speech".

I call it hypocrisy

KATU: Voters’ guide controversy: "Yes" invades "no" on tax measures

To say that the LWV was "fine" with something Nelson did in the past is disingenuous unless they said they were fine. Lack of action doesn't imply consent and approval - it easily could imply the LWV wasn't aware of every single piece of mail sent in the middle of a campaign.

Nelson's hand is in a lot of pots, and stating that the League thinks every last tactic he takes is "fine" unless they file a complaint about it is simply illogical and slimy - er, par for the course.

Sound like a free speech issue to me.

Mapes' blog has a PDF of the "survey" that CLEARLY is an attempt to depress voter turnout by looking like a ballot.

It says "simply put your completed ballot in the enclosed postage-paid envelope" and talks about make dark marks - it includes just the ballot titles and summaries, and is TITLES "January 26, 2010 Special Election."

For those of you not around in 2000, there was a similar attempt to mislead voters with a false Voters' Pamphlet, put out by conservatives.

Nelson should be forced to pay double his fees for this sort of underhanded mess.

If it was meant to be a poll, it's completely unscientific and unprofessional, and has no meaning in its timing - Nelson claims he has YET TO MAIL OUT half of his 110,000 "surveys". This is OUTRAGEOUS.

Free speech has limits. Falsifying elections by pretending to be the elections department is one of them - which is why we have laws against it.

We received one today and I made sure to return it unmarked in the postage paid envelope loaded with a bunch of heavy junk so that Nelson can pay for the return postage. I suggest everyone else do the same.

apparently when the shenanigans is conducted by the douchebags at Our Oregon lead by Kevin Looper and Christy Mason it is alright because they are deliberatly bending the rules/process in support?

These are the yahoos behind the false and misleading "Opposition" statements that gegin and end those statement sections for both M66 and M67.

Who is their paid political lobbyist/consultant on this?

EJared commented: To say that the LWV was "fine" with something Nelson did in the past is disingenuous unless they said they were fine. Lack of action doesn't imply consent and approval - it easily could imply the LWV wasn't aware of every single piece of mail sent in the middle of a campaign.

eh... maybe - but if I'm paying Nelson the kind of six-figure coin talked about here and he's sending direct mail pieces out in MY organization's name, I'm by god going to have SOMEBODY responsible in my organization reviewing/approving his work before it gets sent out... that's just good business sense. (Then again-)

The president of the Oregon league, Marge Easley, now saying she (conveniently) doesn't remember how much the league knew about Nelson's survey in 2006 sounds eerily like another running of the ol' Hillary Clinton 'I'm sorry I don't recall', 'I don't remember', 'I have no memory', 'I have no recollection' Selective Amnesia Special train of the 1990s.

There's an angle here Carla has not referred to directly in her post. The LWV complaint refers to anecdotal evidence that Mark Nelson's mock-ballots are being targeted at ELDERLY voters.

If you look at Nelson's mock ballot, the disclaimer is in faint print and nearly illegible. Who's most likely to not be able to read that and be confused by Nelson's ballot?

Curious question to JTT above: are you a registered Democrat? And forgive the indiscretion, how old are you? You just might be an example of Mark Nelson's tactics.

The theory here is that Nelson is targeting elderly registered Democrats, the demographic within the larger vote he would want to confuse. If Nelson suppresses the vote of thousands of elderly Democrats, his odds of winning go up.

Carla, Mr. Novick, and all good supporters of these measures: get all guns blazing and go after this. Pressure Nelson to reveal who he mailed his 110,000 mock ballots to. If he targeted elderly Democrats, this is a story that'll blow up in Nelson's face and offend Oregonians across the board. That's a story I'd like to see running on the nightly news as voters get their ballots.

Get. A. Clue. The League of Women Voters doesn't have a lot of money and I'd be shocked if they'd paid Nelson to do work. They may have been on the same side on a ballot measure, but there's no way they were paying his bills in any significant way.

As far as comparisons - the Our Oregon folks put their arguments in a specific place so they'd be read - and followed the law in doing so. This has been old news and known tactics, available to everyone.

They didn't violate Oregon law make old people think they'd already voted by sending fake ballots to over 100,000 voters.

Get. A. Clue. The League of Women Voters doesn't have a lot of money and I'd be shocked if they'd paid Nelson to do work. They may have been on the same side on a ballot measure, but there's no way they were paying his bills in any significant way.

As far as comparisons - the Our Oregon folks put their arguments in a specific place so they'd be read - and followed the law in doing so. This has been old news and known tactics, available to everyone.

They didn't violate Oregon law make old people think they'd already voted by sending fake ballots to over 100,000 voters.

Carla, your duplicity and rose colored glasses never cease to amaze me. Apparently as long as the skullduggery and douchebaggery is done in furtherance of Carla's pet projects, then they are "off limits".

At least be honest enough to admit that politics is a dirty, dirty bidness that all sides will not hesitate to get down into the slime for their cause.

If you cause is righteous, you don't need to resort to trickery. Anyone who supports the "no" camp should really be having 2nd thoughts about the integrity of the no campaign.

Do you happen to have a bag that matches those boots? SNARK!

Kurt, I would love to know what you think of

http://blogs.wweek.com/news/2009/12/15/truth-testing-the-nelson-reports-poll-on-january-tax-measures/

Of course, you can't blame Carla for language in that blog like the comment that normally the pollster is independent of the campaign, or has an arm's length relationship with the campaign manager.

Folks, time for a reality check.

While all the arguing is going on here, there are folks who are oblivious.

Got an email today,

"I got my voters pamphlet today, but don't know where everybody stands on the issues, can you help me? What to vote yes and no, not sure."

I wrote back with the LRO website URL and a few other links.

Most people will probably make up their minds without knowing what the initials OAKJT mean, who DEFEND OREGON is, who Carla is, etc.

LMV does not generally take sides in a ballot measure, but they have every right to file a complaint if they think there is wrongdoing.

Just like Common Cause has the right to buy a voters pamphlet statement saying "we are neutral on these measures but have a website where people can look up the campaign financing for these measures".

Nelson's "straw ballot" and some of the comments here sound like the old saying, "when they act like that, you know they know they are losing".

If the taxes pass, AOI, McCormick, Nelson, and many others will have shown they have less power then claimed and do not know where voters really stand.

The LOWV is welcome to file a complaint under ORS 260.345 ( which is the process for filing a written complaint regarding election law violations), however there is nothing illegal about the content in the mailing, so we have to assume this is the LOWV trying to influence the election. Typical skullduggery from both sides. It is after all, now January. The knives are sharpened. Cite the law that was broken. The LOWV sure didn't. Neither can you.

Why do you call people "douchebags"? Is that so you can appear to be provocative, and try and solicit as many comments as you can? Or is that you just being the typical flamer that you are?

LT commented: LWV does not generally take sides in a ballot measure...

Not so, at least in the past two years.

Quoting from their Biennial Report available on their website:

In the past two years, we have taken a strong stand on eleven statewide ballot measures, basing our support or opposition on extensive research and member consensus. In 2007, we worked hard, along with coalition partners, for the passage of Measure 49 to help preserve Oregon’s agricultural industry and special places. In 2008 we took a position on ten of the twelve ballot measures, on issues as wide ranging as voting fairness, representative democracy, Constitutional rights, fiscal responsibility, funding for drug treatment centers, and housing safety standards.

Ricky commented: Why do you call people "douchebags"? Is that so you can appear to be provocative, and try and solicit as many comments as you can?

Ricky, 'douchebag', 'teabaggers', etc are all accepted forms of name-calling here - just don't DARE say 'Democrat' (vs Democratic) Party... it hurts their feelings.

Ricky, did you read the complaint? Or the LAW? The LWV cited it, but I'll copy it over for you:

ORS 260.695 Prohibitions relating to voting. (1) A person may not print or circulate an imitation of the ballot or sample ballot, or a portion of the ballot or sample ballot, which contains information which will not appear, or deletes information which will appear, on the ballot or sample ballot, or that portion of the ballot or sample ballot, unless the imitation of the ballot or sample ballot, or portion of the ballot or sample ballot, contains the following statement in bold type: “NOT FOR OFFICIAL USE.” This subsection does not prohibit the printing or circulation of an imitation of a ballot which illustrates the manner in which a candidate’s name may be written in for an office.

@Carla

I could easily prove to a jury that "NOT FOR OFFICIAL USE" and what was used on the mailing, "NOT AN OFFICIAL BALLOT", is a matter of semantics, and within the intent of the law. The latter is probably even more suitable language to use on sample or imitation ballot.

You're right that they did cite ORS 260.695. I missed it the first time I looked at all the links.

Ricky: "I could easily prove to a jury that "NOT FOR OFFICIAL USE" and what was used on the mailing, "NOT AN OFFICIAL BALLOT", is a matter of semantics, and within the intent of the law."

I highly doubt that.

The law doesn't simply say that the sample ballot must be marked with some vague statement about its status; it doesn't follow the requirement with "... or another similar phrase". The law proscribes a very specific phrase that must be used.

There's a big difference in saying that something has an unofficial source versus something being able to be used officially. For example, take the Voter Registration form on the cover of the Mercury: One could make an argument that it is not an "official" registration (though valid, it wasn't printed by the SoS office), but it's certainly valid for "official use."

And whether the latter is more or less "suitable" is irrelevant. The Legislature wrote that requirement into law. It is not for Mark Nelson to decide that some alternate requirement of his own design is "more suitable" and simply live by his own law.

(If that's how Mark Nelson operates, then perhaps he needn't worry about the tax measures passing; he can simply deem a slightly lower tax rate to be "more suitable" and "within the intent of the law" and ignore what the law actually says.)

Mark Nelson has been around long enough to know not to make up his own laws. I beleive that this specific error was unintentional... but that doesn't alter the relative integrity (or lack thereof) of this tactic.

"We received one today and I made sure to return it unmarked in the postage paid envelope loaded with a bunch of heavy junk so that Nelson can pay for the return postage. I suggest everyone else do the same."

Taping flat washers to the inside of the ballot is a good way to increase the cost of the return postage.

@DSS

Well, DSS - then I'm sure Ms. Axtman will update her posting to reflect the Attorney General investigating the complaint and determining an illegal violation of election law has occurred, and prosecution has begun or a civil penalty imposed. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

@Ricky

Oh, come on; you know as well as I do that those extremes aren't the only two options.

While this is appears to be dirty tricks and very dishonorable, the yes side's tactics is equally pathetic IMHO. While it took me a min or so to realize what was going on (first thought the State misprinted it) in the voter pamphlet, it pissed me off royally. It may be a tactic but its not legit or honorable in my mind, not much less than this crummy survey/phony ballot deal.

"It may be a tactic but its not legit or honorable in my mind, not much less than this crummy survey/phony ballot deal."

However, it is clearly legal.

Whereas the fake ballot shenanigan was clearly not.

Quiche, can you expand on your argument?

Do you think we should have the free speech to mail fake ballots to people (especially certain elderly people who can easily be confused or whose eyesight is poor)?

If so, why?

And should we be able to send fake bills to those people as free speech, and if they end up sending us money, keeping it?

If not, what about the Nelson ballot gives the clear, unambiguous message that it's not meant to be a ballot? And is that enough to overcome the other messages that are clearly designed to make it look like a ballot?

Regardless of all the above, isn't there a clear violation of the law - as the statement was neither included nor bold?

Now that I'm thinking of it, perhaps Nelson mailed Kitzhaber, Dudley, and Alley surveys over the past several years, which is why they didn't vote... YES! Kithaber's press people - call me. Change your talking points!

Blue Collar libertarian wrote:

Sound like a free speech issue to me.

Fraud is not protected free speech. I would not be surprised if some libertarians think it should be, though.

Does anyone ever consider the context that makes these things possible, in the first place?

Ever since snail mail spammers in the 1990s discovered how to legally cause consumer confusion with mailings that resemble something else, the technique has grown and grown. First I can remember was the little old lady telling her friend that she had received a "Western Union", confusing their paid spam with a telegram. Every year people have gotten dumber and marketing has become more aggressive. In the last 5 years telemarketers have taken it to the next level, calling about loans you don't have, credit cards that don't exist, etc. Letting the stupid consumer fill in the blanks with the obvious, to serve marketing ends, is big business.

Since 2000, Dems have decided that if they don't use every dirty trick in the book, they're asking for a loss. They haven't gotten over calling the other side out for the same thing, yet. Yes, this is absolute slime. But, Carla, have you ever heard of being a karma bitch? What goes around comes around, and only a karma bitch whines about it when it happens to them.

Posted by: alcatross | Jan 6, 2010 8:24:24 AM

Ricky commented: Why do you call people "douchebags"? Is that so you can appear to be provocative, and try and solicit as many comments as you can?

Ricky, 'douchebag', 'teabaggers', etc are all accepted forms of name-calling here - just don't DARE say 'Democrat' (vs Democratic) Party... it hurts their feelings.

The hundreds of posts complaining about that have been summarily dismissed by the eminent RyanLeo (the one that lives in California, but blogs on BO and Jack Bog's- and equates them in the same sentence). He has informed us that we are simply not recognizing "hard-hitting journalism". Prof. Lee, of Reed fame, has been informed that he was stupid for thinking that our posting and reading this blog has anything to do with ad. revenue, or that ad. revenue is something an intern should show a bit of deference toward. In short, Carla is licensed to ill.

Just to clarify, alcatross, you object to "teabaggers", but not something like "TEA protesters"? Considering it was THEIR acronym... One has to agree name calling is politics, though. There needs to be a bit of perspective too. For the record, "tory" and "whig" were both derrogatory names, both coined by the other side. The diff. is that they were somewhat descriptive, and weren't entirely rejected by those being called the names. Locally, the "purity troll brigade" is closer to the example. Initially meant as snark by Maurer, the brigade seems to have adopted it for being not too far from the mark. Jon Stewart calls people names. The six year old next door calls people names. There's a difference. Prose can be straight ahead. Straight ahead name calling is boring. I think what you're saying is, "If it's to be name calling, then please raise your game". Any critical thought would have at least lead to "scumbag", one thinks. I mean, is there anything nasty about a douche bag? Not having used one, I assume that the flushy contents are placed in the bag, and flow down a drain or whatever, after use. You doen't suck it back into the bag, do you? Maybe there's some relevant metaphor here, about getting more flies with honey than vinegar. Even honeybag would be better. Agricultural slang for a bag that is used to collect manure. See, that's getting creative. Something like "getting on the honeywagon" would be more approriate to what the "no" on 66 crowd are doing.

"Art which makes a political statement should first have value as art" - Mao Tse Dung

I will update Carla Axtman's post for her, since she hasn't gotten around to it.

I was correct. Mark Nelson using "NOT AN OFFICIAL BALLOT" versus the letter of the law's requirement to use "NOT FOR OFFICIAL USE", didn't in any way rise to the level where Mark Nelson willingly and knowingly violated election law.

Since Nelson was following a format he used previously in 2002 and 2004, regardless of whether it was for the left or the right (and yes, he did work on issues the left approved of), Secretary of State Kate Brown could only warn Nelson that in the future he must use the exact wording the law currently requires. And that's it.

Kate Brown brings up an issue of typography, where people complained about the "faintness" of the notification that it was not an official ballot. I would also be able to easily challenge and defeat that unless the legislation is specifically changed to indicate plain or bold type, color of type, and size of type.

This is the link to KGW's reporting on Secretary Brown and Mark Nelson.

I also was critical of Ms. Axtman calling people "douchebags", to which she has not responded. However, after careful observation, I know why she does it. She does it in an attempt to generate responses to her postings, and drive traffic and comments about her postings. It's a cheap gimmick. Carla is infamous for sneaking in flames and insults towards others, while simultaneously bemoaning the flames and insults given back to her, as if she's not responsible in any way for the quality of content and feedback given back to the BO community by its readers.

I would like to say that I, for one, really appreciate the established BO writers who do not behave in the same manner as Carla does, because then BO is more than "just a blog", which is one of Ms. Axtman's main excuses for her behavior. Saying "I am not a journalist, and this is just a blog" demeans and belittles Blue Oregon' s current and future impact on politics both locally and nationally. She has never really sincerely apologized or admitted she crossed a line when she accused a young man this summer of being a skinhead nazi against healthcare reform -- when the facts were that man only appeared in a photograph at a healthcare rally, and she made all kinds of assumptions about that kid, who was actually at the rally to support healthcare reform, and just happened to like some hardcore punk music and have a shaved head and wore a t-shirt Axtman mistakenly read. That made him a skinheaded Nazi to Ms. Axtman. Unforgivable, since no sincere apology was made to my knowledge.

So, Carla, when you are complaining about the state of comments from the BO readership, perhaps you should think twice about how you frame your postings. The mean nature and spirit of many of them tends to contribute to the lack of participation and poor quality of thoughtfulness and response from readers.

<hr/>