Political Robocallers Indicted In Maryland

sanzibar writes with a llnk to Politico with an object lesson for modern political campaigners: don't harass the electorate with unwanted robocalls. "Ehrlich campaign manager Paul Schurick and Baltimore political consultant Julius Henson were both charged with three counts of conspiracy to violate election laws, one count of attempting to influence a voter's decision and one count of failing to print an 'authorized by' line on campaign material. Schurick was also charged with a single count of obstruction of justice for failing to turn over materials sought by the grand jury."

Re:

[RadiantPhoenix]

I read a bit of the article, and the calls targeted likely supporters of candidate A, and basically said "You can relax, candidate A has enough votes" the defendant is being charged because he was attempting to deceive voters to influence the outcome of the election.

If only politicians could be charged with something like that for not fulfilling campaign promises.

Re:

[hymie!]

There's a difference between influencing the voters how to vote (legal) and influencing the voters not to vote (illegal).

Re:

[Hatta]

the defendant is being charged because he was attempting to deceive voters to influence the outcome of the election.

All candidates in all races always attempt to deceive voters to influence the outcome of the election.

Re:

[sjames]

You can say what you want to convince people to vote for you, but attempting to obstruct the election process itself is off limits.

Re:

[Arancaytar]

When robots pass a Turing test, they will get free speech. Not before.

Re:

[Runaway1956]

Sorry? Yes, indeed. Robocalls are a form of trespass. Around these parts, trespassers are usually shot. Survivors are shot again. If you're caught doing Robocalls, make sure you're not in Texas, or much of the rest of the South or Midwest. Keep your gay ass in one of the gay states, like California.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Only steers and queers come from Texas, Private Runaway1956. And you don't look much like a steer to me so that kinda narrows it down.

Re:

[Z00L00K]

Please mod parent as "Funny", it was awesome! :D

Re:

[rhook]

I'm pretty sure you cannot legally shoot someone simply for trespassing in Texas, in fact I've read about people being prosecuted for doing just that. Read Texas PC 9.41 - 9.42. The key word in there is "reasonably".

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.41.00.html [onecle.com]

http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.42.00.html [onecle.com]

Re:

[Runaway1956]

Not very many months ago, there was a story of a woman in Houston, who looked out her window to see someone breaking into her car. She blew the joker away. No charges were filed. Anywhere you go in Texas, it is "open season" year round on thieves and other lowlifes. A trespasser is not on safe ground, period. You do realize, after he's been shot, it's the shooter's word against - uhhhh - NOBODY'S word! Or, as ye olde pirates would have said, "Dead men tell no tales!"

Re:

[rhook]

Did you even read the laws I linked to? Protection of property "during the night" is one of the circumstances that allows for the use of deadly force.

For phone calls

[MrEricSir]

I'm pretty sure freedom of speech includes the right to say whatever you want on the phone.

But does it really include the right to call and/or harass people by ringing their phone? That doesn't seem like "speech" to me at all.

Re:

[CokeBear]

During the last Canadian election, seniors (in mostly Liberal-leaning areas) were robocalled and told that there voting place had changed. Does "free speech" include the right to lie to people in an attempt to reduce the voter turnout of a specific group of voters?

Re:

[hsjserver]

Yes, but you have to run the disclaimer at the end saying who paid for the ad.

Re:

[Z00L00K]

No it doesn't - there are laws limiting what you can say and not. You can state your opinion using free speech, but you can't deceive or insult someone.

Re:Free speech

[canadian_right]

It was fraud. They robo-called predominantly black riding to say the election was over and there was no need to vote which was an out and out lie. Then they attempted to hide the evidence.

This has nothing to do with free speech, it is out and out fraud and is a criminal matter.

Re:

[Z00L00K]

Robocalls aren't free speech - it's speech forced down someone's throat without asking for it during dinner time causing indigestion.

I would say that if robocalls for a political campaign is done against someone's will that party should be banned from participating in the election for the next 4 years. That would be a clear enough statement to say that it has to be entirely clear that robocalls aren't wanted.

Re:

[fredrated]

I have a suggestion: stick with the only 2 things you are good at: fucking whores in the ass and eating shit out of a toilet. Now THAT is free speech.

Re:

[Jawnn]

There is a difference between "free speech" and "protected speech". Google the words "firehouse" and "fire", together, for the grounding in First Amendment law that you appear to lack. Then we can move on to the finer points...
Robocalling and various forms of "voter suppression" are most certainly not protected speech. Granted, anyone dumb enough to change his mind about voting after receiving an unsolicited robotic phone call, suggesting that he should stay home because his candidate has the election in

Re:

[KDR_11k]

The right to freedom of speech applies to people, not robots!

Re:

[sjames]

Are you sure? What's your phone number?

Free speech doesn't include the right to use MY resources for YOUR speech. That is, MY phone and the phone service I pay for. That also includes MY time to see who's calling and hang up. The least you could do is the courtesy of having an actual human being call. If you'd care to make a speech on the steps of the courthouse or buy some ads, I'm fine with that. You can also put up a website and tweet to your heart's content. You can put flyers in my mailbox if you'd lik

Re:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

If someone cares to pay for a telephone line into my house, they can robocall me on it all day long. The line that I do have is paid for by me, and I control who gets to talk on it.

Why?

[hsjserver]

Any politico worth his salt knows that robocalls, no matter how many and who is talking, do nothing but piss the electorate off at you. They aren't even good at raising awareness because people tune out. It's a waste of time up until the summer before an election anyway, and then it's only any good if you're using volunteers and getting people to turn out. I've run call centers for campaigns before and it's incredible to me that somebody who was affiliated with statewide campaigns, that is someone who ha

Re:

[hsjserver]

There are also better ways to suppress voter turnout than confusing robocalls and they don't even get you indicted. For starters, running a hard negative campaign and hoping it rains are probably the best way for a Republican to affect turnout in their favor. These days your campaign doesn't even have to be the ones doing the mudslinging, you can just publish your opposition research and let the 501c(4)s take care of the rest with no need to reveal doners or do anything but do dirty things to the other gu

Re:Why?

[Runaway1956]

How disingenuous. A Republican started BOTH of our current wars.
The present unemployment is a direct result of policies of several administrations and congresses.
No administration since Clinton has published "real" unemployment rates, instead manipulating the numbers for political purposes.
NO ONE can say what Obama's health care reform might have accomplished, because obstructionists have prevented it from happening.
The trillions of deficit spending is largely due to those Republican wars that are ongoing.

But, there is no requirement for honesty in any political post, so you go ahead and put your spin on reality.

Re:

[Runaway1956]

Except - I'm not a liberal. Keep failing, Bubba. Libya is a NATO operation, isn't it?

Re:

[thunderclap]

But 75% of NATO funding is from the US. And no question, Obama authorized the use of force on a soverign nation not at war with the US for the sole purpose of assisting in their civil war.

Re:

[Z00L00K]

NATO is in reality controlled by the US through proxies, if someone says "Jump" at Pentagon to NATO everyone will jump. Some may jump sideways just to declare their independence (like France).

Re:

[hsjserver]

You actually have 90 days, and it isn't quite up yet and the Administration maintains that because no American troops or aircraft are actively and currently attacking Libyan forces (as I understand it we're in more of a support/logistics role) they don't need Congressional approval. It's not illegal, not yet anyway, and I doubt the Supreme Court would disagree with the administration.

Re:

[rhook]

No, it is 60 days. Nice try at confusing the facts though. Obama has even ignored the legal advice of some of the nations top lawyers on the subject.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/world/africa/18powers.html [nytimes.com]

"WASHINGTON — President Obama rejected the views of top lawyers at the Pentagon and the Justice Department when he decided that he had the legal authority to continue American military participation in the air war in Libya without Congressional authorization, according to officials familiar with

Re:

[rhook]

I forgot to add this about the second quote, the executive branch is not the legislative branch, i.e. they are not the ones who get to interpret nor make laws.

Re:

[hsjserver]

You're half right. The executive branch has to interpret the law, because they're the ones executing it. The Supreme Court has held that Congress can delegate rule making authority to parts of the executive branch (like how the EPA can set emission levels). The whole reason White House council and the Justice Department exist is to interpret the law.

Re:

[rhook]

Which is why they have lawyers, too bad Obama does nothing but ignore his.

Re:

[hsjserver]

You get a 30 day withdrawal period, that in effect gives you 90 days. His legal analysis and the analysis of not all but some in the Justice Department is that NATO operations in Libya, to the extent we're involved, don't constitute hostilities. The law is not clear on what "hostilities" are. For all your argument otherwise, this is gospel unless the Supreme Court rules it otherwise, or Congress modifies the War Powers Act. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying this isn't exactly settled law. The kic

Re:

[Hatta]

Both current wars? We are in 3 wars.

Re:

[hsjserver]

The DNC is doing fine, they're raising more money than ever. Sure, those statements are going to be tough but they can be worked around, especially considering that elections are between two candidates, and it's easy to hit a guy when there isn't anyone running against him.

First: Gitmo nobody cares about except progressives and they'll pull the lever once they see who is running against him. The Iraq war is as good as over since we're not taking casualties. The stimulus will be a problem in that it wasn'

Re:

[hsjserver]

Wow, I've never been made a straw man before.

Re:

[hsjserver]

You included my direct quotes to tear down arguments that I didn't make and have nothing to do with what I said. Pretty sure that's a straw man.

Re:

[Jiro]

Don't forget the warrantless wiretapping.

Re:

[olsmeister]

Exactly. I would barely tolerate a polite human calling at a reasonable hour. Robocalls piss me off, and definitely push me away from whichever candidate the call is supporting, especially if I didn't have a strong opinion to start with. They are the telephone equivalent of spam or junk mail, both of which I pay no attention to. However after glancing at TFA it looks like there is more to this than just that - they were actively trying to keep their opponents supporters from going and voting, which cros

Re:

[hsjserver]

It's pretty common, especially now, but the way they went about it was just stupid. At best a negative robocall campaign is worth maybe a tenth of a percent at the margins, probably less. TV ads, mailers, and actual calls are so much more effective in shaping the electorate. What these guys did was just dumb.

Re:

[olsmeister]

And the really sad thing is, many people who are elected and become our leaders probably see absolutely no problem with it.

Re:

[KDR_11k]

I think it shows their contempt for the democratic process and as a result they should be banned from government functions for several years. They're trying to undermine the fundamentals of their country!

Re:Why?

[sunderland56]

Any politico worth his salt knows that robocalls, no matter how many and who is talking, do nothing but piss the electorate off at you.

In this case, people from party A were calling supporters of party B, claiming to be from party B. So, if the electorate got pissed at party B, they would consider that a success.

Re:

[hsjserver]

That is to say, You the caller, not You the party. People don't vote one way or another based on robocalls, the point is they're ineffective at anything.

Re:

[sjames]

That's the really dirty part! The messages implied that they came from his opposition!

Re:

[Runaway1956]

The key words in the memo were "suppress the vote".

I do get tired when our fellow Americans who are black play that race card. But, had you RTFA, you see that this is indeed a bigoted attempt to prevent a specific group of people from voting - BLACK people.

Re:

[hsjserver]

It's not necessarily bigoted; blacks vote over 90% with Democrats. No other constituency is that aligned with a party.

Re:

[KDR_11k]

Dude, the countries that call you lazy have way more comprehensive social systems.

Robocallers pissing off voters

[Anonymous Coward]

There were robocallers that were calling people like 3am in the morning...paid for by the opposing party pretending to be the other party here in Canada to piss people off from voting for them.

That's the least of the problems

[Wrexs0ul]

I helped a couple campaigns get a correcting message out in the last federal election when someone dialed a bunch of homes with the lie: "This is elections Canada, there has been a change in your polling station, please go to X to vote". Typically the fake poll was in the middle of a crowded mall or some other difficult to reach place, I'd assume the goal being to dissuade the voter or delay them until voting ended.

Politics in close ridings can be dirty business, and it's ultimately the Candidate and their

Re:

[Geminii]

Does Canada register people against parties the way the US does? Australians don't (AFAIK) get these kind of calls, and I suspect that part of the reason is that there is no name-affiliation record of any kind. Voting locations and registration are handled centrally by a public service agency, and locations are published in newspapers and on the net. However, apart from personally talking to people, there isn't an easy way to tell who's likely to vote for whom other than through general demographics.

Re:

[KDR_11k]

IMO any attempts to interfere with the voting process in a way that prevents people from voting for the candidate they want should result in a ban from all political functions for several years. It's unacceptable to undermine the very foundation of a republic and then expect to be a legitimate government agent.

robowalkers

[CSMoran]

Political Robocallers Indicted In Maryland

Now for the robowalkers!