Did BCRO violate FEC rules?

By Rubashov


The Bergen County Republican Organization (BCRO) has sent out a number of potentially problematic election communications recently.  Several mass emails blasted out on behalf of the BCRO by members of its leadership failed to note who paid for them, in apparent violation of Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules.
 
The BCRO also sent out an expensive mass direct mail piece that appeared to suggest that the candidates on the BCRO “line” were part of a ticket sanctioned by President Donald Trump.  An operative with the President’s campaign denied this, stating that being on a local party ticket that is endorsing the President does not mean that the President is endorsing the other candidates on that ticket.  The endorsement goes up, not down, the ticket.
 
FEC rules on communications like this are very restrictive.  From the FEC website:
 
“A state or local party committee may prepare and distribute a slate card, sample ballot, palm card or other printed list naming candidates for any public office. The payments are not considered contributions or expenditures on behalf of any federal candidate listed, as long as the following conditions are met:
 
The list names at least three candidates running for election to any public office in the state in which the committee is organized.
 
The list is not distributed through broadcast stations, newspapers, magazines and similar types of public political advertising (for example billboards). Direct mail, however, is an acceptable method of distributing a slate card or sample ballot.
 
The content is limited to the identification of each candidate (pictures may be used), the office or position currently held, the office sought and party affiliation. Additional descriptions, designs, images and photographs must not provide supplemental biographical information, descriptions of candidates’ positions on the issues or statements of party philosophy. Certain voting information, however, may be given, such as time, place and instructions on voting a straight party ticket.”
 
Curiously, some of the BCRO email blasts contain appeals to Ronald Reagan’s so-called “11th Commandment” (“Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican”) and accusations that the candidates opposing the BCRO-endorsed John McCann for Congress were running “negative” campaigns.  Hypocritically, the authors of these emails failed to mention the BCRO’s own negative campaign on behalf of John McCann in 2018.
 
That was the year that Steve Lonegan, the father of the conservative movement in New Jersey, was on the receiving end of a campaign unprecedented in its level of sustained hatefulness.    That campaign caused many conservative donors to simply give up on New Jersey Republicans, to this day sending their money to candidates elsewhere.  This drain of conservative money to campaigns outside New Jersey affects the ability of state Republicans to secure and hold elected offices.  Bergen County has particularly suffered.
 
The political consultant brought in to run the campaign against Lonegan was a brilliant tactician named Kelley Rogers.  He came up with a series of fiercely negative campaign advertisements.  It is worth noting that John McCann’s consultant was not around to direct his 2020 primary campaign.  Last year, Kelley Rogers pleaded guilty in federal court.  Politico covered the story (09/18/19):
 
In one of the first Justice Department cases of its kind, Maryland political consultant Kelley Rogers pled guilty to wire fraud on Tuesday for operating multiple fraudulent political action committees that raised money from donors for conservative causes but kept much of the funds for Rogers and his associates.

Rogers’ arrest and indictment took place shortly after Politico and ProPublica investigated one of Rogers’ PACs, Conservative Majority Fund, which since 2012 has raised close to $10 million — mostly from small-dollar donors, many of them elderly -- while giving out just $48,400 to politicians.
 
The BCRO appears to have a love affair with John McCann, despite his history of campaign losses – including the biggest defeat in the history of CD05.  For his part, McCann exudes a quirky charm and a combativeness that often gets him into trouble…
 

THERE ARE NO STUPID QUESTIONS, ONLY STUPID POLITICIANS- Congressional candidate John McCann to a woman asking a question- that's a stupid question.

Nevertheless, the BCRO leadership’s faith in John McCann appears unshakeable.  Despite his historic loss in 2018, BCRO boss Jack Zisa awarded McCann the party “line” without a vote of his membership.  That is, of course, an entirely different discussion for another day.
 

“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.”
(Karl Marx, author and philosopher)

Reason magazine demolishes “Russian troll hysteria”

The conventional story is that Russian trolls infiltrated the 2016 election with fake social media ads. But according to details from a February 2018 indictment of those trolls, it's unclear how much of an effect they actually had.

Federal prosecutors have filed charges against 13 Russians who allegedly sought to "sow discord in the U.S. political system" through social media posts, ads, and videos falsely presented as the work of Americans. After the indictment was unveiled in February, The New York Times reported that Donald Trump's "admirers and detractors" both agree with him that "the Russians intended to sow chaos" and "have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams." But Reason Senior Editor Jacob Sullum says a close look at the indictment tells a different story.

Here are "5 Reasons Not to Feed the Russian Troll Hysteria:"

1) Russian trolling was a drop in the bucket. According to the indictment, Russian trolls associated with the so-called Internet Research Agency (IRA) in Saint Petersburg spent "thousands of U.S. dollars every month" on social media ads, which is a minuscule fraction of online ad revenue. Facebook alone reported advertising revenue of $9.16 billion in the second quarter of 2017. The Russians are said to be responsible for producing 43 hours of YouTube videos, but that doesn't seem like very much when you consider that 400 hours of content are uploaded to the site every minute.

2) Russian trolls were not very sophisticated. Russian trolls supposedly had the Machiavellian know-how to infiltrate the American political system, but their social media posts don't look very sophisticated. The posts often featured broken English and puzzling topic choices. A post promoting a "buff" Bernie Sanders coloring book, for instance, noted that "the coloring is something that suits for all people." Another post showed Jesus and Satan in an arm wrestling match under this caption: "SATAN: IF I WIN CLINTON WINS! JESUS: NOT IF I CAN HELP IT!" The post generated very few clicks and shares.

3) Russian troll rallies apparently did not attract many participants. The indictment makes much of pro-Trump and anti-Clinton rallies instigated by Russian trolls, but it does not say how many people participated. The New York Times reported that a Russian-organized rally in Texas opposing Shariah law attracted a dozen people. An anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rally in Idaho drew four people. Attendance at other rallies was similarly sparse.

4) Russian trolling probably didn't change anyone's mind. Broken English aside, the social media posts were not qualitatively different from content created by American activists, and they seemed to be aimed mainly at reinforcing pre-existing beliefs and divisions. The Russians might have gotten a few Trump supporters to show up at anti-Clinton rallies, but that does not mean they had an impact on the election.

5) Russian troll hysteria depicts free speech as a kind of violence. The Justice Department describes the messages posted by Russians pretending to be Americans as "information warfare." But while the posts may have been sophomoric, inaccurate, and illogical, that does not distinguish them from most of what passes for online political discussion among actual Americans. The integrity of civic discourse does not depend on verifying the citizenship of people who participate in it. It depends on the ability to weigh what they say, checking it against our own values and information from other sources. If voters cannot do that, maybe democracy is doomed. But if so, it's not the Russians' fault.

You can subscribe to Reason magazine’s  YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv

Or visit them on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/

Or follow them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason