About That Ad Hoc County Campaign Reform Committee...
Posted by: Jubal | 07/17/2008 6:05 PM
On Tuesday, the Board of Supes voted to continue their vote on whether to receive the county's response to the OC Grand Jury report on reforming TIN CUP. The Grand Jury's recommendations essentially aped a proposed TIN CUP reform generated by Supervisor Moorlach's office -- which the Board wisely voted down several months ago. The Grand Jury's position, boiled down, is that government doesn't regulate county campaigns activities enough.
Supervisors Moorlach and Pat Bates want to create an Ad Hoc committee to take another whack at reforming TIN CUP. The devil, as always, is in the details -- or in this case, in the composition of the committee.
Sup. Moorlach suggested a mix of supervisors, staff, and private citizens. Fair enough. But I think it is vital to include people who make their living in the world of politics: the people who have the operate under these rules, like campaign treasurers, past candidates, consultants and politicos.
They can bring real world experience to bear on ivory tower and/or newbie suggestions about how to use regulatory power to modify political behavior.
Take, for example, this suggestion from the Grand Jury report:
Sounds good on paper, and it accomplishes that goal. But the unintended consequence is IE committees can use the rule as telegraphy too kind of coordinate with the candidate they support. When an IE hits Candidate A, Candidate B gets notified at the same time. By sending out the notification 24 hours in advance, the IE essentially telegraphs to Candidate B that his/her campaign doesn't need to expend resources on that hit.
It doesn't allow for perfect coordination, but every little bit helps.
But the Grand Jury's proposed solution is simple to circumnavigate. An IE committee looking to drop a nuke on a candidate can simply mail it late Thursday night and then notify for Executive Director of the FCPC -- who, of course, has already gone home for the day.
The ED then has three business days to notify the candidate being hit. In this case, third business day is Election Day, by which time the targeted candidate has already received de facto notification from the U.S. Postal Service that Saturday.
Of course, the ED could be diligent and immediately notify the Candidate being attacked...but would you want to rely on that if you were a candidate?
While anyone with some campaign experience immediately perceives the unworkability of this "reform," the Grand Jury thinks it is a dandy idea. What's scarier, it is Grand Jury-types who would make up the proposed Fair Campaign Practices Commission.
If this Ad Hoc committee is created, it's imperative it include people who actually understand campaigns, or else it will be a waste of time.
Supervisors Moorlach and Pat Bates want to create an Ad Hoc committee to take another whack at reforming TIN CUP. The devil, as always, is in the details -- or in this case, in the composition of the committee.
Sup. Moorlach suggested a mix of supervisors, staff, and private citizens. Fair enough. But I think it is vital to include people who make their living in the world of politics: the people who have the operate under these rules, like campaign treasurers, past candidates, consultants and politicos.
They can bring real world experience to bear on ivory tower and/or newbie suggestions about how to use regulatory power to modify political behavior.
Take, for example, this suggestion from the Grand Jury report:
1-6-9. Notice of Independent Expenditures.The current 24-hour notification requirement is intended to prevent a candidate from being blindsided by negative attacks -- especially false, last minute hits -- so they can prepare a response.
Requires the Executive Director of the FCPC to notify affected candidate within 3 business days of an Independent Expenditure being made for/against the affected candidate INSTEAD of requiring the person who makes the Independent Expenditure to notify all candidates 24 hours prior to making the expenditure.
Sounds good on paper, and it accomplishes that goal. But the unintended consequence is IE committees can use the rule as telegraphy too kind of coordinate with the candidate they support. When an IE hits Candidate A, Candidate B gets notified at the same time. By sending out the notification 24 hours in advance, the IE essentially telegraphs to Candidate B that his/her campaign doesn't need to expend resources on that hit.
It doesn't allow for perfect coordination, but every little bit helps.
But the Grand Jury's proposed solution is simple to circumnavigate. An IE committee looking to drop a nuke on a candidate can simply mail it late Thursday night and then notify for Executive Director of the FCPC -- who, of course, has already gone home for the day.
The ED then has three business days to notify the candidate being hit. In this case, third business day is Election Day, by which time the targeted candidate has already received de facto notification from the U.S. Postal Service that Saturday.
Of course, the ED could be diligent and immediately notify the Candidate being attacked...but would you want to rely on that if you were a candidate?
While anyone with some campaign experience immediately perceives the unworkability of this "reform," the Grand Jury thinks it is a dandy idea. What's scarier, it is Grand Jury-types who would make up the proposed Fair Campaign Practices Commission.
If this Ad Hoc committee is created, it's imperative it include people who actually understand campaigns, or else it will be a waste of time.
CATEGORY:
TIN CUP 2
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Why is the Grand Jury regulating that notice has to be given? This is First Amendment speech and you shouldn't have to broadcast your plans to engage in that speech. Like in warfare, one of the objectives in campaigns is surprise. This idea of notice is silly and being promoted by old, grumpy people who have no idea of how a campaign actually is managed.