Stith robo-call: An unexplored angle
I mentioned this briefly in the post below, but i wanted to highlight it here and hope that someone smarter than me can shed some light on this.
Listening to the recording of the call, and reading the transcript, you almost don't notice that it's not a campaign call. Nowhere does Thomas Stith say that he's running for mayor, nor does he state who is paying for the call. In fact, the call says, he's going to introduce a resolution at City Council on Monday night, and he'd like your support.
So the call is being made in his capacity as a City Council member.
Does that strike anyone else as highly unusual? If the calls were paid for by the city, would that be merely a poor use of taxpayer funds, or a violation of some kind. And would it be illegal, or merely unethical, if the calls were paid for by a third party? And if they were paid for by Stith personally, would the political exemption allowed for in the Do Not Call legislation still apply? Shouldn't it have been made clear in the phone call who was financing it?
Coupled with the use of Stith's campaign contributors today to get out his message (which, like his robo-call does not specifically appear to be part of his campaign for mayor) about the resolution he intends to submit to Council, it appears that Mr. Stith might be having some trouble separating his position on Council from his campaign for Mayor.
Is that something that needs looking into?
UPDATE: See this post for the word from Board of Elections. Bottom line - robo calls aren't covered at all by current NC election law.
My prediction. If this loophoole isn't closed, expect to get a lot of robo-calls in future campaign seasons.
Listening to the recording of the call, and reading the transcript, you almost don't notice that it's not a campaign call. Nowhere does Thomas Stith say that he's running for mayor, nor does he state who is paying for the call. In fact, the call says, he's going to introduce a resolution at City Council on Monday night, and he'd like your support.
So the call is being made in his capacity as a City Council member.
Does that strike anyone else as highly unusual? If the calls were paid for by the city, would that be merely a poor use of taxpayer funds, or a violation of some kind. And would it be illegal, or merely unethical, if the calls were paid for by a third party? And if they were paid for by Stith personally, would the political exemption allowed for in the Do Not Call legislation still apply? Shouldn't it have been made clear in the phone call who was financing it?
Coupled with the use of Stith's campaign contributors today to get out his message (which, like his robo-call does not specifically appear to be part of his campaign for mayor) about the resolution he intends to submit to Council, it appears that Mr. Stith might be having some trouble separating his position on Council from his campaign for Mayor.
Is that something that needs looking into?
UPDATE: See this post for the word from Board of Elections. Bottom line - robo calls aren't covered at all by current NC election law.
My prediction. If this loophoole isn't closed, expect to get a lot of robo-calls in future campaign seasons.
Labels: 27701, Durham, elections, local politics, Thomas Stith
Since 1949, Durhamites have slept soundly, secure in the knowledge that, in our town, erection can be depended upon. Now, thanks to the power of the internets, we can spread that security all over the world.
2 Comments:
Let me try this again, as it got eaten by the cyber goblins the first time: I would definitely call Mike Ashe at the Board of Elections about this and ask him directly. He loves to answer questions and be of help. I think the issue is pretty simple because one thing I do know is that you can not mingle your personal funds with campaign funds, period -- so if Stith paid for the robo calls himself, it makes no difference. If he is a candidate for office, and this is deemed a campaign call, and he included no disclaimer, and a disclaimer is required, then he is in violation. I'm just not sure a disclaimer is required on robo-calls. I always erase them so never get to the end, but I cannot recall hearing a disclaimer in the past.
Definitely post the answer here! I'd be interested in knowing the answer. Let's not forget Stith has already violated one campaign regulation in putting up his campaign signs too early on DOT right-of-ways.
By
Anonymous, at 11:38 PM
I am 99% certain that a notice of who paid for the call is required of all campaign messages.
It certainly appears that Mr. Stith is making an effort for this to be as close to a campaign call as one can get without crossing that line.
By
Barry, at 7:30 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home