February 26, 2010

$5000 fine for violation of election law

Pro-IRV FairVote MN was fined the maximum amount by law for using celebrity endorsements illegally.

In the judges ruling, they state:
[Violations] were made despite the clarity of the statutory prohibitions, and the Respondent remains completely unapologetic. The timing of these mailings made it difficult for opponents to respond before the election and created an unfair advantage. These false claims of support or endorsement likely influenced some voters, but the impact on the election cannot be quantified on this record.
A Recent pro-irv ad in Burlington features 3 Washington suits -- John McCain, Howard and Bernie. Thanks to his press conference, we know Howard doesn't know the facts, but Bernie? Surely Bernie remembers how he got elected mayor of Burlington! But that's not the point, which is that support for IRV is not the same as support for a specific ballot question. It is a tactic that FairVote uses, and they have been fined for it. But by the time the court can act, the election is over. Note: VT has no election law that addresses this issue.

KEEP DIRTY-TRICK POLITICS OUT OF VERMONT.
SEND THE MONEY BACK TO [un]FairVote.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Voters in Vermont have the good sense to avoid the corrupt politics of Senator John McCain. Vermont stands for clean politics, not the corporate lobbyists that staff the McCain for President campaign. His support in VT was nil. It was a lame attempt to impress republicans.

Anonymous said...

"Pro-IRV FairVote MN was fined the maximum amount by law for using celebrity endorsements illegally."

I'm sorry, what does this have to do with IRV in Burlington, VT?? Oh yea, nothing!

"Thanks to his press conference, we know Howard doesn't know the facts"

Really?? He supports IRV because he thinks that it's a fairer way to run elections, period.

"but Bernie?"

Yea, Bernie...he's always supported IRV. Now get over it...

"Note: VT has no election law that addresses this issue."

Hmmmm, like I said...this is a phony issue that has absolutely nothing to do with the ballot item that's in play here, period.

Anonymous said...

Dirty Tricks -- Pro-IRV uses repealirv domain name to trick people into visiting their 50% website.

rbj said...

i'm astonished.

do you know who owns that domain name?

i just WHOISed them and the real owners are behind a domain name proxy. but the registration date is public: 20-Feb-10

now guys, i'm voting for the other side, but i am sorta astonished that they would do this.

i'm also astonished that the domain was available a week ago. didn't you guys scarf it up when you got repealirv.org?

or did some domain name prospector own it? geez, if that is the case and FairVote bought it and parked the domain at 50% matters, geez, that is sorta brazen and dirty.

i'm sorta ashamed of that. (i'm standing by the issues, but not all of the tactics of people i'm voting with.) that's too bad.

Lea Terhune said...

50% listed an expense on their finance report, "domain name, Feb 20, 2010, purchased by Brendan Bush." That's a registration date match with what you found.

"i just WHOISed them and the real owners are behind a domain name proxy. but the registration date is public: 20-Feb-10"

Fair Vote owns a lot of IRV related domains since they fund pro-IRV campaigns all over the country. They just lost a vote in Pierce Cty, WA -- 71% of the people who voted chose to repeal IRV on Nov. 3, 2009.