SwiftVets.com

[wovenhearts]

in today's The Seattle Times was this Opinion piece by a guest columnist, Russ Lehman. It included a picture from one of the first ads that Swift Vets ran. Please read and reply. I have been following all of these issues closely, but many of you are way better at expressing yourselves about these lies. I know that Swift Vets are not partisan political operatives just trying to take the heat off of President Bush's National Guard service, and it frustrates me when that is what the news media says!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002053800_russlehman05.html

Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.

Guest columnist
Don't let 'bad actors' halt independent political campaigns

By Russ Lehman
Special to The Times


AP (this is where the picture shows -- I don't know how to copy it here)
Retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann is seen in an anti-John Kerry ad sponsored by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The current election has again exposed the seedier side of American politics through the work of those well-financed, barely regulated, dirty rotten scoundrels — the independent expenditure campaigns.

From Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to the Voters Education Committee (a.k.a., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), the outcry for their prohibition can be heard far and wide.

While the public may believe these enterprises are prohibited under the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform legislation, the truth is they are permitted — and that's a good thing for our democracy.

There is broad agreement that an informed and engaged electorate is essential for a healthy democracy, political advertisements should be truthful and accurate, and those who pay for such ads should be compelled to disclose their identity simultaneously with their publication.

The Swift-boat ads were simply a politically motivated attack on Sen. John Kerry's military record intended to mitigate the stark contrast with President Bush's non-record.

The attack ads aired here against attorney general candidate Deborah Senn created public consternation for a different reason. While the truth and accuracy of the ads were not seriously disputed, the organization that created the spot refused to disclose its financial backers. With a display of incredible arrogance, it told the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission to stick it — until fear of an imminent court appearance changed its mind.

These recent examples of pernicious campaign practices show the ethical and moral flaws of those who finance and create such political advertisements. Clearly, this type of political advertising turns off voters and detracts from the myriad important issues we should be discussing.

We must, however, resist the natural inclination to "get rid of the whole lot of them," as the public would like to do and many candidates feign support for.

The roles that independent organizations play are critical to our democratic process and, when done legally and ethically, add value to the debate.

Today's campaigns are often vacuous, consultant-driven exercises in drive-by debating, where many issues important to majorities — and minorities — of voters are completely ignored. When independent groups that represent large or even small parts of the electorate take out a booth in this marketplace of ideas, the voter has more information and will then be more likely to make an informed decision.

Even assuming that an outright prohibition of these independent groups were somehow constitutional, to further restrict the opportunity for individuals and/or groups to inform and, yes, influence voters would often restrict the debate to those issues the candidates deem important.

There are many groups that undertake independent expenditures because they want an issue, or issues, they care about to become part of the debate during an election and feel that neither the candidates nor the parties are likely to address them.

In 2000, Indian tribes joined forces for the first time and undertook an independent-expenditure campaign against U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton because of his long record of animosity toward tribes and because neither political party was paying sufficient attention to issues of importance to them during the campaign.

The independent campaign informed voters of Gorton's record on issues that polling showed the public cared about. Issues similarly important to Natives were discussed in the general-election campaign as well. Gorton lost, and Congress paid close attention thereafter. The result bolstered the Native voice in American politics, informed the Washington state electorate, and the result was good for our democracy.

So what do we do about the bad actors whose interest is neither civic engagement nor an informed electorate?

There are three important safeguards already in place that, if undertaken with commitment, act as necessary protections: First, an aggressive, robust and courageous political media will help inform voters of who is behind the ads and whether the ads are truthful and accurate; second, an aggressive election regulating agency (i.e., the PDC) will act in a timely fashion against law breakers; third, an engaged electorate will hold the bad actors and their candidate-beneficiaries responsible.

To restrict the rights of those who want to inform and influence voters merely because of the actions of a few rogues would only narrow our discourse and entrust the debate to the very people who gain by its narrowing.

Russ Lehman is the managing director of the First American Education Project, an Olympia-based organization that educates elected officials, candidates and the public on issues of importance to Native Americans (www.first-americans.net). He is a member of the Olympia School Board and an adjunct professor of politics and policymaking at Seattle University and The Evergreen State College.


Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company

Letters to The Seattle Times, not exceeding 200 words, must include your full name, address and telephone numbers for verification. Letters become the property of The Times and may be edited for publication. High volume prevents our acknowledging receipt of submissions.

Send letters to:

Mail:
Letters Editor
The Seattle Times
P.O. Box 70
Seattle, WA 98111

Fax:
(206) 382-6760

E-mail your letter: opinion@seattletimes.com

[air_vet]

I just sent the following to the paper:

If the intent of author Lehman's article was to lament about the spending of money to "attack" political candidates, perhaps moveon.org (George Soros and company) would be a MUCH better example than the Swift Vets. Soros and company have spent far more money than the Swift Vets.

I would much prefer that ALL 527 organizations were eliminated, but until that happens (don't hold your breath) - don't condemn one without condemning the others.

If moveon.org has a right to express an opinion, so does swiftvets.com!

[Theresa Alwood]

I sent my e-mail!


_________________
Born to raise a little hell!

[swing votr]

I don't think he realizes that character, which I attribute much of the SBVT purpose to, is very important. Kerry's past actions can be used to determine his future actions.
_________________
"I already don't miss it," he said of Washington. Asked to elaborate, he replied: "You know that great feeling you get when you stop banging your head against a wall?"

[Doc Jerry]

My email went out 2 minutes ago.


Medics, we're there when you need us.

[SangRun Hunter]

I sent one too!
_________________
Mad as Hell!

[margie]

iI sent an email also. I said i was angry that he thought the Swift Boat ads were Politically motivated..that they were personally motivated. By the people who knew Kerry, and knew he was unfit for command. I asked if he had read the book.

[Dimsdale]