Clear Channel Caves
This is shameful.
Clear Channel Outdoor is taking down the “Voter Fraud is a Felony!” billboards that drew protests from community groups that labeled them efforts to suppress the vote in low-income and minority communities.
And the billboard company also said that it’s working with the City of Milwaukee Election Commission to do digital bulletins, digital posters and transit shelter totems as space becomes available to promote a positive election message that states: “Skip the election day line - vote early.”
Early in-person absentee voting starts Monday.
So I understand now that Clear Channel will not honor a contract if I choose to advertise with them. Duly noted.
Yeah it is shameful. The billboards talking about voter fraud should have had Robin Vos’ wife on it.
It really always is better to try and discourage voter turnout…if you are Republican!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 0840 hrs
Owen, Sykes just talked about this. Said CC would continue running the billboards but considered them political advertising, hence the family that was paying for them would have to disclose their identity. Family declined.
Sad state of affairs that a family is so worried about dem hate and dem hate speech they feel they can’t disclose their identity.
That said, nothing is stopping Sheldon Adelson, Crossroads GPS or some other group (Maybe a Boots and Sabers PAC) from stepping up here and providing the funding to get those billboards back up.
Some PAC with some cash needs to call Clear Channel’s bluff here.
Further, aren’t there any other billboard companies out there, or does Clear Channel have a monopoly position on all billboards (Maybe a Romney Attorney General needs to do an anti-trust investigation here)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 0840 hrs
Clear Channel probably has a near monopoly in the Milwaukee market. Billboard companies will often “trade” inventory with each other across the country to remove competition. Cities don’t like dealing with multiple billboard companies and would prefer to only fight against one. Clear Channel also has the bus contract in Milw, so I have little doubt that they dominate the market with the best inventory.
CC has 100% of the 30 sheet inventory here in the Twin Cities and probably 60% of the full size billboards.
If you are voting legally, what do you have to worry about?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 0851 hrs
Maybe a Romney Attorney General needs to do an anti-trust investigation here
Yeah! Go after your political opponents in court!!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 0922 hrs
VA—Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
There have to be some Judge Sumi’s and Colada’s out there we can find to validate our case.
Heck, we wouldn’t have these billboards if we didn’t have voter ID tied up in a Dane County court.
By the way, wasn’t judge Pina Colada supposed to release his opinion on whether he’d stay the ACT 10 decision by now? He’s had about eight weeks I think.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 0928 hrs
If you are voting legally, what do you have to worry about?
Seniors and the poor are used to being intimidated in our society. This is just one more way to throw doubt and fear into the minds of those most likely to vote Democrat and hope they stay home rather than be hassled. Right out of the Republican playbook!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 0932 hrs
Interesting—the billboards violated Clear Channels own policy which is that the names of someone putting up billboards needs to be disclosed. So, Clear Channel violated its own policy when it accepted the billboards. They contract was not broken—it was flawed and invalid from the start.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 0933 hrs
I cry BS on Clear Channel’s policy. They take those God billboards across the country, and there’s no mention of who pays for them. Or is it God himself?
Seniors and the poor are used to being intimidated in our society.
No, they aren’t stupid, no matter how much liberals want to portray them as such with their victim class hysteria.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1033 hrs
“By the way, wasn’t judge Pina Colada supposed to release his opinion on whether he’d stay the ACT 10 decision by now?”
Wow, really? I always thought you were better than crap like this, Steve.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 22, 2012 at 1057 hrs
dodgecountydem said,
Interesting—the billboards violated Clear Channels own policy which is that the names of someone putting up billboards needs to be disclosed. So, Clear Channel violated its own policy when it accepted the billboards. They contract was not broken—it was flawed and invalid from the start
So you support a company unilaterally breaching a contract when it is not written to company policy?
Really?
Wow.
Even I do not support companies doing that.
I guess it would be up to conservatives to protect the consumer party in this situation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1104 hrs
The parties involved in the contract can protect themselves, Kevin. If CC breached its contract, it will be liable for damages. What other recommendation would you have? What government overreaching do you want the Republicans to engage in to “protect the consumer party” here?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1219 hrs
VA,
Mistake in the formation of the contract (where a meeting of minds happened on the mistake) is not an excuse for lack of performance or to breach the contract.
The resolution here is to sue Clear Channel into oblivion and any liberal activists that caused tortuous interference with the contract.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1225 hrs
I think the billboard should remain up .
“Vote.r Fraud is a felony.”
They should have to add ( under truth in advertising )“In the microscopic number of cases that actually exist.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1242 hrs
Mark,
Naturally, if you are paying for the billboard, you can do that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1306 hrs
So…liberals are worried that those who vote for democrats are dumb??? Is that the issue? That is what I am getting from those who want to squash free speech.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1355 hrs
Recess—At this point the other side is bringing me down to their level.
If Judge Juan Colas wants to thumb his nose at the taxpayers of Wisconsin and every governmental unit by purposely dragging out a simple decision on whether his order striking down Act 10 should be stayed pending appeal, then I can thumb my nose at him.
It has been six weeks since the decision and five weeks since he said he’d issue a written order on whether to stay his decision pending appeal.
Yet he continues to try and run out the clock for his liberal allies by not issuing a simple “yes/no” decision.
This is all part VII of the anti-Scott Walker playbook. The new chapter is strike down every law passed in the last session and delay the process in the courts until next April and the hope they can flip the State Supreme Court back “lefty”.
So Voter ID and ACT 10 both languish.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1403 hrs
At this point the other side is bringing me down to their level.
Spoken like a card-carrying member of the 47 percent who refuse to take any personal responsibility.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1446 hrs
Right, and I am sure that the police putting up a roadblock to check if the driver has car insurance right outside a black polling location is perfectly fine too. Hey, if they have insurance they have nothing to worry about right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1501 hrs
How is this any different in principle from a business that mistakenly advertises an incorrect price in a flyer, then refuses to honor said price when the customer arrives at the store?
In both cases, the business has committed an error. In the case of Clear Channel, I presume that the company has made an effort to rectify the situation with the involved party (giving them their money back would seem to be a good start). At that point, the aggrieved party can either agree to settle or can litigate.
Let’s also note that according to Clear Channel, when presented with options to remedy the situation, the client PREFERRED to remove the signs. Taking the signs down was the client’s choice.
So really, all we’ve got here are a bunch of passers-by complaining that the client agreed to an action that they don’t like. If the client wants to sue, the client will sue. Of course, I’ll put the odds of a court allowing the plaintiff to remain anonymous at somewhere near zero. And as for Kevin’s suggestion that Clear Channel be “sued into oblivion,” I’m pretty sure the court would limit a verdict to actual damages, which in all likelihood aren’t much of anything. It’s not like CC outed the client without consent; that would be a much greater legal issue since it would open the client up to retaliatory action.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 22, 2012 at 1606 hrs
Recess,
Mark Beiling is taking a unique approach.
He is asked Clear Channel if he can pay for one of the boards if he says its paid for by him.
He’s waiting for clear Channel to get back to him.
We will see if Clear Channel is serious about their “policy” on this inquiry.
I don’t think Clear Channel will let him do it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1610 hrs
Kevin, you didn’t answer my question. I said CC can be sued for breach, and your response was to say “NO! THEY CAN BE SUED FOR BREACH!!!!”
And Recess is spot-on. CC would be liable for the actual damages, which would be minimal. Obviously CC would have to refund the money, and it’s possible that CC would have to pay the difference between what they charge and what a billboard company who offers anonymous political speech charges, but that’s it.
What, exactly, would you like CC to be sued for? Is there some special “Kevin doesn’t like you so you have to pay” cause of action?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1646 hrs
Let’s create hysteria and just throw money at a problem that doesn’t exist so that ...
Voter ID cases: Invisible voter v. imaginary fraud
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/31/opinion/persily-voter-id-laws/index.html...but I could post a hundred examples and we cannot trust the media, can we
?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1701 hrs
Let’s put that Belling example in terms of your world, Kevin. Let’s say the Boy Scouts come to you and ask you if you’ll do some kind of a fundraiser promotion for them at your stores. You agree, because you like the BSA and you think they’re good for your community. You might take a bit of a ding financially on each coupon but you’re willing to bet that the increase in traffic will make up for it, and that the goodwill generated from your offer might keep those people coming back.
Now let’s say the local strip club comes to your business and asks for the same deal. Let’s also say that they’re willing to fund your share of the promotion, so you in effect are giving up nothing in exchange for the store traffic that the promotion would generate.
Would you still take the deal? I’m guessing you’d probably be concerned that your affiliation with the strip club might cost you long-time customers who might not approve of such a relationship, right? And that’d be a very rational thing to consider.
Mark Belling is a highly polarizing figure; it’s part of what makes him good at his job. Would Clear Channel allowing Mark Belling to purchase space on its billboards be good for business? If it ends up costing them other clients, then no, it wouldn’t be. And surely as someone who professes conservatism and allowing businesses to determine their best course of action, I would fully expect you to support Clear Channel denying Belling a billboard if their rationale was that associating with Belling would be bad for long-term business.
Now, if it were some random, relatively unknown guy like you or me, that might be a different story. But that’s not who we’re talking about here. That Belling is so high profile makes it an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 22, 2012 at 1703 hrs
Speaking of not answering questions, I asked VAPolitico (about a month ago) for the name of one person unable to get a free I.D. by election day.
Still waiting for an answer.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1845 hrs
Mike, I didn’t read that post. But for your sake, I’ll say my best friend’s grandma was unable to get a free ID by election day.
And the above statement has as much truth as the statement that pervasive voter fraud necessitates getting IDs to vote, and it’s not about Republicans trying to keep the people they don’t like from voting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1919 hrs
Give me her number. I will personally drive her to the ELGAR.
Anyone else?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1943 hrs
DMV. Spellcheck.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 1944 hrs
VA,
The mistake in the contract lies in the fact CC allowed the customer to put up the billboards without disclosure.
Then CC disallows that option in the middle of the contract…that is where the breach is…changing the terms of the contract.
What CC did was: Unilaterally rip up the the existing contract….thanks to torturous interference from oppressive liberal activists And then offer a new contract on different terms from the original. the customer, and American patriot, refused to take the contract on the new terms.
CC can be sued for breach of the original contract.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 2034 hrs
Recess,
Now let’s say the local strip club comes to your business and asks for the same deal
This would never happen because such a “deal” would be contrary to my Christian faith.
We are talking about billboards expressing the law of the State of WI. It’s posted in every polling place! Why would this cost Clear Channel customers?
Is it forbidden in the oppressive left wing religion to say “Voter fraud is a felony”?
What else can’t I say in public on a billboard without getting the left wing activists in a twist?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 2041 hrs
“Kevin, you didn’t answer my question.”
Get in line, VA.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 2054 hrs
Are there really any functioning adults in Wisconsin who could be intimidated by and actually allow their vote to be suppressed by the contents of a billboard? An adult so weak of mind that a billboard message has the power to prevent them from voting? The whole process of becoming informed, such as viewing a debate or watching a political ad must reduce such an individual to a quivering mass of goo. I find it difficult to believe many such people exist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 2114 hrs
Kevin,
First, it’s “tortious” interference, not tortuous.
Second, I totally agree that they can be sued for breach. CC should be sued for breach, and it probably will.
You said that it’s up to conservatives to protect the poor billboard guy in this scenario, and I asked what things you think should be done, beyond the remedies that you and I AGREE exist (suing for breach), and you haven’t responded.
I genuinely agree with you that a lawsuit for breach is the proper remedy here. I think the damages should be and will be limited. You think it’s up to “conservatives to protect the consumer party in this situation,” and I want to know what you mean by that, because it sounds like you want something more than the already-present legal remedies.
What do YOU think is the appropriate remedy here, beyond suing everyone you don’t like “into oblivion”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 22, 2012 at 2230 hrs
Right, and I am sure that the police putting up a roadblock to check if the driver has car insurance right outside a black polling location is perfectly fine too. Hey, if they have insurance they have nothing to worry about right?
Make up your mind John. Are you concerned about the people so poor they have no home, car, cell phone or any other thing they would need ID to get and the elderly who have not been able to drive for years(if they still drive they have ID, so do the poor), or police blockading a black voting place? I am fairly sure no one is concerned with that except you. Besides, if that did happen and the police were not prosecuted, it didn’t really happen did it, just like voter fraud.
Are dems really vapid enough to buy the no evidence of voter fraud? Really? With zero dollars being allocated to investigating the crime, you expect that authorities will still find thousands of cases? Really? I am sure there are literally billions of jaywalking offenses every year. How come we only have thousands of jaywalking tickets issued each year. Are 99.999% of jaywalkers not really jay walking? I am sure there are billions of speeding infractions every week in the US(probably every day if you count each new zone as a new infraction for each car). Why is no one being stopped for 1 mph over? The Dem answer, because no one is doing it. It isn’t happening. Look how many people have been given tickets and prosecuted for 1 mph over. Virtually zero, no law breaking to begin with then, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 0749 hrs
VA,
Conservatives should find lawyers to protect this customer’s contract.
I take it you don’t like my slight of hand word play that speech oppression by liberal activists is torture? As well as “tortious”?
It’s time the liberal oppression of public speech stops. It’s constant and never-ending.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 0907 hrs
”...my slight of hand word play…”
Uh oh, Kevin, there’s a flag on that word play! Let’s get the word on the field!
Personal foul, number 34 Scheunemann, improper use of a homophone (slight/sleight). 5 yard penalty, repeat the last post.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 0958 hrs
A contract that contravenes public policy is void, so I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1016 hrs
Major,
So that word penalty was a total of 20 yards? No ejection from the public square?
You don’t happen to be a replacement official working the Packer-Seahawk game a few weeks ago?
Kidding aside, I am somewhat impressed you caught the use of “slight”...I was worried I was little “over the top” throwing that one into my point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1017 hrs
Jason,
A contract that contravenes public policy is void
I’ll bite.
Which “public policy” would that be?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1018 hrs
Sleight of hand, Kevin. Sleight of hand.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1036 hrs
The public policy that forbids voter suppression.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1039 hrs
Jason,
Stating what the law is…is voter suppression?
So if I go around saying “Vote fraud is a felony”, is voter suppression?
I’d classify this attempt to squelch speech in the public square about this important law as typical left wing speech suppression.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1123 hrs
There is no more impressive intellectual display than someone misspelling words and then pretending that they’re doing it deliberately to see if other people will notice.
Sometimes you have to quit when you’re behind to avoid falling behind-er.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 23, 2012 at 1144 hrs
Really Jason, the actual ad is closer to a Miranda rights reading than voter suppression.
Specifically, if anyone can answer this, what makes reading the penalty for an illegal act either suppressive or even technically political?
We better fine the police department for all of those ads citing the penalties for drunk driving. A call to all drunk drivers! The police are trying to suppress you from driving illegally by telling you the penalty (that no judge ever seems to impose). That directly affects sheriff and judge elections, I say. But wait, there is more. It is suppressive to all of us sober drivers as well. I mean, if there are no illegal voters, the signs are only giving messages to legal voters, right? So not one illegal voter is affected by the signs because they are legal voters.
What Dems are suggesting here is that the signs will intimidate legal voters? My conclusion, then is that Dem supporters believe that their voters have no conviction and even less drive. Professional grade fail for Dem voters, IMO.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1155 hrs
I would feel the same way if we were talking about drunk driving billboards that discuss state law but appear only in a single community. That’s targeted, and when it comes to messages designed to influence the voting process (as distinguished from influencing voting behavior, like candidate choice), targeted messages are rarely permissible. The community targeted with drunk driving threats probably doesn’t have much protection, but the community targeted with voting threats is going to get federal attention.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1310 hrs
Jason,
So what you are saying is: putting a “don’t drink and drive” billboard in a town, like Newburg, would be discriminatory?
So it’s “verboten”, in the liberal religion, to hit a prime audience with a helpful public service message?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1320 hrs
“Kidding aside, I am somewhat impressed you caught the use of “slight”...I was worried I was little “over the top” throwing that one into my point.”
Kidding aside, how about you answer that question you owe me, welsher?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1341 hrs
Major,
You, and I believe greencarman, could not agree on what the question was.
Let me know when you figure out the question.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1352 hrs
Reposting from last Monday:
“Kevin, have you ever been diagnosed with, received treatment for, or been recommended by a professional to seek treatment for Asperger’s Syndrome or any other autism-spectrum disorder?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1433 hrs
Am I wrong here? What am I missing? The signs don’t threaten legal voters. They threaten illegal voters which libs insist do not exist!
If they don’t exist, what the hell are you talking about? I have never felt threatened by a drunk driving sign or commercial. I never drive drunk! Why on earth would any legal voter feel threatened by the signs? Even if I lived in a drunk driver ghetto, I would never feel threatened by the anti-drunk campaign(though I would take care entering and leaving the district). Am I just braver than Democrats? Are Democrats unaware of the rules for voting?(The old ones, like you must be a citizen, not a con, over 18, etc.)
Jason, you might have had an argument if the new law were in effect, people who were legal before could not vote legally now, etc., but that is not the case here. The only conclusion I can come to about someone who both believes there is no voter fraud and that a sign citing the penalty for voting illegally is somehow suppressive is that that person is incomprehensibly dense or knowingly hypocritical. Please, by all means defend your beliefs here. We know that you think the signs were suppressive. How? Why do you think that?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1446 hrs
The signs are designed to scare people. Ostensibly they’re designed to scare illegal voters, but if there’s even a slight possibility that such a sign would also scare a legal voter, it’s not okay. That’s how we used to treat fundamental rights in this country. Even the suggestion of the possibility of a single violation was enough to invalidate an idea. Not anymore though. I continue to be old school.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1552 hrs
Exactly, and my analogy is apt because road blocks checking for legal activity have been used to intimidate legal voters.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1618 hrs
Jason,
but if there’s even a slight possibility that such a sign would also scare a legal voter, it’s not okay.
And liberal activists are the ones to determine this?
This is public liberal speech suppression at its finest…claim the speech, whether it does or not, could scare someone.
Political speech is not subject to content review under the 1st Amerndment.
Meanwhile, poor, defenseless, Republicans are not safe from being beat up by liberal activists in their front yard over yard signs!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1729 hrs
Major,
No.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1730 hrs
“No.”
Awesome, now I can finally scratch “Kevin is autistic” off the list and move on to the next most plausible theory, which involves robots.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 1927 hrs
Question for you, Booris…
When you were named “greatest grandpa,” was the other finalist Jerry Sandusky?
Real fine example you’re setting for your grandkids. I hope they don’t turn out to be shitheads like you.
Posted by Badger on October 23, 2012 at 2052 hrs
From Kevin’s cold logic to Badger’s red-hot fury to my own irritating smartassery, there’s a place for everyone on B&S!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MxGC1j2ogM
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 23, 2012 at 2129 hrs
Major,
That is the question you and greencarman labored to agree on?
I’ll even give you a freebie.
No I am not a robot, but I could buy the argument many in the socialist, big government movement, could be robots.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 0619 hrs
No, Kevin, gcm had nothing to do with it. I offered him first crack at a question, and he passed. That’s all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1014 hrs
Jason, isn’t every campaign illegal then today? They are all designed to scare you away from the other candidate. Isn’t what segway boy does at the capital every day illegal? Many white people fear black people for a variety of invalid and a few valid ones? Why isn’t segregation still legal? Frankly your statement is a bit ridiculous. Freedom from fear or knowledge of the law is neither protected as a fundamental right nor even a decent argument, save at your monthly PC meeting. I don’t believe there is a precedent for a murderer to get off because he did not know it was illegal to kill. Nor have many business/bar owners ever been forced to take down a sign prohibiting murder, because it might scare away murderers.
Voting violations are historically an unenforced law. This favors the politicians so it remains the case today. Raising awareness of a law that the majority of people prefer to start being enforced is not voter suppression. Neither is placing the sign around polling places or neighborhoods that had 25%+ falsified information on ACORN lists in the past, for instance.
If the police want to crack down on speeding or drunk driving or jaywalking, I personally strongly appreciate a raising of awreness before it starts to happen. I jaywalk whenever it is convenient and the road is clear. I set my cruise control at about 7 over the speed limit because that is what I can get away with. If they started a video program to record and automatically give tickets to all speeders of 1 mph over and I received 22 tickets before I got my monthly ‘bill’ I would be seriously upset. That is analogous to these signs. The majority wants voting violation awareness raised.
John, if we feared the police were going to interfere in an election, that would definitely be one way. Since you are talking about public officials rigging elections there are much less public ways to do it. I would definitely be against the police doing the ID checks. at polling places. However police stationed outside a polling place, is not a valid analogy to a sign pointing out the laws against voting illegally. One is informational. The sign can’t arrest you on outstanding warrants. Please look up what analogy means.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1023 hrs
Touche, Tuerqas. Let the libs try to answer that one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1120 hrs
Easy. Let’s look at it another way.
How is voter fraud perpitrated? Is it campaigns, organizations, or parties organizing a mass group of people to walk into a polling place pretending to be someone else? Or is it someone who gets up on election day and says, “instead of shoplifting I am going to go to a random polling place and pretend to be someone one?” I think we can agree it is more likely the first one. The only way voter fraud, if it occurs, is effective is when it is done on a mass scale not some impulse decision.
Let’s then look at who the billboard is aimed at. The claim is that it’s target audience is normal everyday people who may be thinking of committing the act, but voter fraud is not perpetrated by those people. It would have made more sense for the billboard to be outside a party office or a campaign office since they are the ones who are the ones who could commit voter fraud.
I grew up in the south and I grew up watching voter intimidation of African Americans and Hispanics in Texas. When I was stationed in Virginia I watched it happen and there have been numerous cases in the last 10 years that I have read about that are similar in Florida, Georgia, and even that New Black Panther incident in Pennsylvania. Based on what the target audience should be for these billboards and where they are located it is clearly an intimidation. The true goal of the billboard is to intimidate legal voters into thinking they could be doing something wrong, just like it is voter intimidation to set up a road block near a black precinct to do a warrant check, check for proper registration of a vehicle, etc which are very common and illegal ways to intimidate voters.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1205 hrs
No, Turerqas, that’s the distinction between trying to influence voting behavior and trying to influence the voting process. Trying to scare someone into voting for one candidate or another is distasteful, but legal. Trying to scare someone out of voting entirely is illegal. And the contents of these signs coupled with their selective placement runs awfully close to the latter.
But we’re really not talking about law here anyway. A contract that violates law is obviously void, but so is a contract that a court deems to violate a general public policy. Collusive bidding at a family auction is the classic example. Not illegal in most jurisdictions, but a contract between collusive bidders would never be enforced because it goes against our general public policy that prohibits collusion.
Here a court could very easily find that the subject of the contract is incompatible with the public policy that encourages, rather than discourages voting. Doesn’t mean the signs are illegal, just that they’re close enough to allow one party to bow out if they feel necessary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1229 hrs
Well now, suddenly a lib is thinking on how to perpetrate voter fraud? Give John a gold star. So now that the concept is finally open for debate I give you ACORN and many other organized attempts to get out the vote. Scrutiny of those lists has shown a consistent average of around 20% falsified data. Those people are affiliated with Dems, but they are not directly part of the party. ACORN does not vote, individuals do. Who is responsible, the instigator or the perpetrator? I have no problem prosecuting both, how about you?
The problem you have in the first paragraph is that you equate mass inspiration with mass action. I agree with you that organizers are attempting mass fraud, but they don’t all walk in together. Every individual chooses to come in and if they are convinced by others that all they need is a job, an official home or a green card to vote, maybe it is far better for them to look up the rules for voting on their cell phone rather than take someone else’s word for it. If the sign makes them take that step, I say yea, for both the legal and the illegal voters.
If anyone cares enough to vote, but doesn’t know if they are legal to do it, I say it behooves them to find out. If they are ‘scared away’ by a sign mentioning penalties, I don’t think they cared enough to begin with.
Sorry, but you saying who and what the sign is aimed at does not convince me, the sign is just not that scary. That goes back to my original question. If your reasoning is predicated on the signs purpose is purely to intimidate like somethingthe KKK might do, we have some weak-tit haters these days. But it is a line of reasoning, and I thank you for giving it.
Your other argument has more merit, even if it is no more convincing. I did not grow up in the south, and I have never seen voter intimidation. I will give you the benefit of the doubt when you say you have seen it. It is just that, I have no idea of any voting locations except where I have lived, and though I have lived in mixed neighborhoods, I never stuck around after voting to watch the location. You really did that? What community, exactly?
See, up here in the midwest, it is white people intimidated by black people at least in their own neighborhoods. It is hard for me to imagine blacks of today being intimidated by us whiteys anywhere on their home turf. And from my reading of the article, this didn’t happen in the south, so my perception outweighs yours if your opinion is based on your memory of southern white/black tensions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1258 hrs
Jason, again with the ‘awful close’ and the ‘suggestion of the possibility’. That just isn’t the case. If you really want to murder someone, say they swindled your family, but a sign regarding the penalty for murder actually stopped you, I say good for the sign and hail to the signmaker. And if the signs are put in to the neighborhoods that are responsible for half of all murders in a city, I again say yea, maybe it will stop one more murder. Why wouldn’t you? Your statement on scared of voting at all is a valid point though.
Your second two paragraphs concern the actual case at hand. I never had a problem with the outcome of this case. I personally don’t see the signs as politically based under the same distinction you point out above(they were not based against any party, they were non-partisan and informational), but that is moot. Obviously Clear Channel did not think so either, initially. When pressure made them redefine it the signs still would have stayed up if the sign sponsors named themselves. They didn’t, the signs come down. The sign did not violate law until it was redefined and I am not at all sure a court would have decided one way or the other if anyone wanted to take it to court. There is certainly room for either interpretation, IMO.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1320 hrs
Tuerqas- Not a liberal, but try again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 24, 2012 at 1923 hrs
My apologies John. I guess I should have known as there is not a lib I have ever met in person or on line that actually allowed that the idea of illegal voter influence went beyond Republican voter suppression. You can identify yourself when and how you wish or not at all. If you are not a liberal there may actually be hope that your opinion can be modified through discussion. Mine has on this blog over the last few years. Is that the only hole you found in comment 63? That you are not a liberal?
I have found that this topic is one of the most polarized issues out there. Liberals absolutely believe that Republicans are trying everything in their power to suppress as many Dem voting blocks as possible. 90%+ of Republicans believe there is rampant voter fraud in many areas of the country and that their ‘acts of suppression’ are acts of common sense. Most indepents of any stripe tend to believe that there is both going on, but individuals may or may not believe that it is a particularly high priority for either party.
You may be something else completely, for instance a conservative Democrat. You do not have to identify your status, but I would appreciate you clarifying your positions on both sides of this issue. It sounds like you are of the Reps set a high priority on suppression camp. What is your opinion on Dem voter fraud? Do you think it just doesn’t exist?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 0633 hrs
Whether you or I think there is widespread voter fraud or not is irrelevant. Widespread voter fraud would not be perpetrated by random people walking in off the street because they decided to vote twice, it would be perpetrated by institutions on a large scale. It just does not make sense. This billboard is “aimed” at those people and sense they do not exist the billboard really has another aim.
I am just calling a spade a spade. Growing up in Texas and being stationed several times in the south, I have a sense of justice about how this country treats African Americans and Hispanics in an institutional sense. My family were Republicans in Texas when there were no Republicans not only because we served our country but also because of our belief in fiscal responsibility and our belief in equality.
We just need to be honest about what the purpose of these billboards are for and I gave several other examples of similar instances of voter intimidation, on both sides.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 0811 hrs
I still find the same hole in your premise. If there is a widespread attempt at voter fraud, it manifests only as random single voters. There are no vote blocks where a group comes in and punches one ticket that counts 155 times. Voter fraud, if it exists, is through misinformation from unscrupulous sources (like ACORN), or people who have collected data and then use abandoned addresses to vote multiple times.
For instance, I know a person who had a green card from Costa Rica and was working to become a citizen(He is now). He was told specifically by an ACORN turn out the vote representative in 2008 that all he needed was a permanent address to vote. He said he did not vote and that is cool, but, like buying a brand new mercedes from a guy off the street for $1200 bucks where you know something is wrong but the man told you it was on the up and up, a sign might actually make people double check if they do have the right if they have doubts. That is a good thing. Anyone born in the US and over 18 has absolutely nothing to question in the first place, do they? I suppose a gullible, street stupid person that did not listen or dropped out of school might be convinced he could not vote…but not by a sign stating that voting illegally is a felony, come on.
I think questioning who the sign targets is an excellent idea, but targeting blacks in Milwaukee? If they are unlearned, as critics of MPS suggest, how are they supposed to make the mental leap that a sign saying illegal voting is a felony is trying to make them question their right to vote? You are giving them way too much credit while insulting them and giving them no credit. Your conclusion that it is meant to cause fear among blacks just makes no sense here.
I think the sign specifically targets illegal immigrants(that is their purpose), but I don’t see the bad in that. Not one of them is supposed to vote. I just don’t see how an average black or hispanic person born in America would take any more notice of that sign than any other notice of law that does not apply to them. Blacks and hispanics in the midwest have their hurdles, but bully fear from a political party is not one of them. Maybe in the south, the mainly white police force still works with Gov’t to treat minorities as second class. That is not the case in the midwest. Police would be arresting anyone even pretending to check insurance, or ID, or anything else near a polling place in WI on election day.
It is 100% completely unfair to stereotype black/hispanic and white relations in the south with relations in the northeast, California, mountain west or midwest. They have both entirely different histories and entirely different current realities.
I think your spade is a diamond. Voter fraud may have been organized by a party or party affiliate, but it is perpetrated by individuals. That is who the sign has to speak to, and I believe they were aimed specifically at illegal immigrants. If there are any organizations with voter fraud as part of their hidden agenda they already know damn well that it is illegal and what the penalties are. It is the inividual dupes that take the bait putting their freedom on the line.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 1007 hrs
” Trying to scare someone out of voting entirely is illegal. And the contents of these signs coupled with their selective placement runs awfully close to the latter.”
Huh? On what planet? If your not planning on doing something illegal, where is the scare?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 25, 2012 at 1538 hrs
Huh? On what planet? If your not planning on doing something illegal, where is the scare?
Exactly! There has to be some sort of additional campaign of ‘further information’ to actually have this sign be scary to anyone but an illegal voter. The sign does not in any way question anyone’s right to vote.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 26, 2012 at 0729 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 45
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/21/2013 06:41 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).