Millionaire Greg Chase Paying $25 for People to Install Mike Gravel Yard Signs in NH?

It's kind of pathetic (0.00 / 0)

Like the Car Guys saying how somebody needs to tie a pork chop around his neck to get his dog to come.

If I had a yard sign out for candidate X, then some millionaire clown started paying mercenaries to post the same signs, I would deeply resent it. Not because I didn't get my $25, but because everyone would think I was on the take.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:00:47 AM CDT

If I was Gravel, I would denounce this clown (0.00 / 0)

The irony is thick anyway -- Chase is a hedge-fund manager, a "code word for Wall Street banker" according Gravel a couple debates ago.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 10:21:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Cuteness (4.00 / 1)

Yeah, it is kind of cute when it deals an underdog, but I think that could be part of the point. On the one hand, this is like a more honest version of a 527. Chase isn't trying to hide anything. He's not swift-boating anyone. He just wants people to put up signs to raise awareness for Gravel.

Is that different than buying advertising, just on a smaller scale? Is it any worse than the ads he has purchased in the U-L, Monitor and Telegraph for the rest of the year? But then again if someone was doing this for, say, Mitt Romney, would there be hellfire spewed from every other candidate and plenty of pundits?

Chase maintains that Gravel suffers because of his lack of name recognition and incumbency. I think there is more to it than that, and I wish Gravel would campaign in NH more, too. I spend nearly an hour on the phone with a friend of mine who was angry about the debate thing last week explaining to him Gravel's numerous shortcomings and a candidate for President in terms of communication, action and perception. As if to show that he is finally getting the point, Gravel has begun to announce his upcoming campaign stops just in the last few days. Will that change his plight?

The other thing it raises, like you say, is the legal question. Most conservatives are strong believers in the money = free speech argument. When someone supporting a Democrat puts that ideology in action it causes a little bit of heartburn. Would it be okay if Chase was paying people to put up signs in favor of a carbon tax? Does the hallowed ground serenity of candidacy become spoiled by a few hollers from the peanut gallery?

The real heart of this issue is that much like some people are more equal than others in terms of the amount of free speech that they can communicate (Chase, for example) some candidates are more equal than others because of name recognition (Clinton, for example) and familiarity with donors. Chase seems to feel it is his civic obligation to try to level that field at least in this special case. Will that taint Gravel's support among those voters who like him for his candor and perceived purity, or will it give him and his ideas enough of a visual and media presence to actually put them in play? Or will nothing happen at all? Chase seems pretty serious about it, so I guess we'll find out one way or another.

Ha, I obviously find this topic incredibly interesting. A campaign finance laboratory, of sorts. I also can't spend any money on political candidates because I already spent it on beer and coffee so its fun to see what others do.

---

by: BTB @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 14:33:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I doubt there is a legal issue (0.00 / 0)

If I can spend $1000 to have an ad in the local newspaper, or on a billboard, I can probably spend $25 to have someone turn their front lawn into a mini-billboard.

But it is deeply corrosive and cynical.

People put lawn signs out because they believe in the candidate, not because they want to make a few bucks.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 14:36:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

candidacy (0.00 / 0)

Does the hallowed ground serenity of candidacy become spoiled by a few hollers from the peanut gallery?

I think it might be. I know people in 527s, and the rules they have to follow are insanely strict and complicated. They can't support candidates by definition, and the rules that come out of that are complex. I remember a 527 member and a campaign member showed up, by coincidence, at the same time at a drinking liberally I had -- and they made it a point not to talk to each other more than an initial hey how are you -- just to avoid any impression that non-public information was being disclosed.

I asked about this later, and someone told me  that even saying something like canvassing is going rough in City X could be construed as coordination, so it's best not to talk at all.

The reason I think there is no legal issue with Chase is no money changes hands here -- if Chase was running a foundation and spending other people's money to do this it would, I think, be illegal.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 18:07:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

'unencumbered by the thought process' (4.00 / 1)

That's what I think of Gravel, at least on some issues like the 'flat tax'.

---

by: shpilk @ Sun Oct 28, 2007 at 14:09:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]