Considering partisan political mailers
These mailers point to failings more widely of our U.S. political elections. While underhanded tactics like these have been a part of elections for many years, we must trace how we got here.
Namely, a U.S. Supreme
Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) decision cited First Amendment protections of Free Speech as it displaced concurrent efforts to maintain parameters and limits for independent special interest spending on mailers like these. It was further cemented into the political landscape by a Mccutcheon v. FEC decision four years later. Nullifying the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act from 2002, these have effectively been allor-nothing decisions that have reverberated negatively in October 2023 in the beloved Boulder bubble.
The FEC itself was set up in the early 1970s: it was signed into law by President Nixon in order to enforce limits on campaign spending on communications and stem a flow of misand disinformation before elections. Tracking back further, in the early 1900s President Theodore Roosevelt called for protections that led to a Tillman Act, followed in the 1940s by the Taft-hartley act and Hatch Act (that has been brought up in recent investigations of Trump’s behaviors during and after the 2020 election).
We didn’t see this coming? Local election reform demands U.S. federal election reform. Like climate change, problems that manifest locally must be connected to challenges at larger scales.
Our collective myopia — across space and time — will provide us with what we deserve, unless we demand changes throughout our political system. That can start with a condemnation of local political mailers, sure. But for us to actually move past mere complaints and change the conditions that lead to this situation (and others in the future), we must address these Supreme Court decisions and revive enforcement of these earlier acts.
Max Boykoff, mboykoff@gmail.com
My first thought is that the entities who generated and distributed the mailers in question don’t think very highly of Boulder voters’ intelligence. Yes, it is a mean and stupid act to (falsely) accuse a person seeking to serve the community with condoning or even supporting the Jan. 6 insurrection. But I am also a little taken back at the vehement, incensed response to these mailers that decry the not-so-novel emergence of poo-flinging in our local politics. And it makes me wonder whether both sides think that
Boulder voters are too stupid to think their way past such childish attacks.
Anyone can play this game of testing voters’ abilities to see through the deception of what is being said. Indeed, one can say seemingly outrageous things about others that rely on the studied ignorance of the recipient for their effectiveness.
For example, just by looking at the photos of the current slate of mayor and City Council candidates, it appears that almost all of them are brazenly Homo sapien, exercising that lifestyle in ways that lead them to gratify themselves through such necessitous actions as masticating openly, even in the finest Boulder restaurants. Many of them have immediate families who live together in veritable dens of propinquity, where they practice sequestered acts of unbridled conviviality (and sometimes drag in nonfamily members!).
Furthermore, at least a couple of the candidates are avowed sexagenarians (and a couple of others probably won’t admit it). Several have children who, following in their parents’ consummate footsteps, are matriculating openly and proudly, even at some of the best colleges in the U.S.! And many of the candidates have close and/or distant relatives known to have degenerative diseases, even (especially!) into advanced ages.
So ask yourselves: Can such veracious people be given positions of leadership in our community without risking an escalation of Boulder’s subsistence? Think about it.
Fintan Steele, fsteele1@me.com
Like most of you, I abhor lies and mud-slinging in politics. I disregarded the first anti-bob Yates mailer as soon as I recognized it for what it was: trash (or rather, recycling). That said, plenty of ink’s been spilled over this issue already and I’m not sure how much bigger the puddle needs to get. Some of the coverage in the newspaper in my opinion has also been problematic. The other mayoral candidates were expected to quickly “denounce” the mailer and when one apparently didn’t respond before the Daily Camera went to print on Oct. 26, we were left to think her silence might be suspicious. The article was updated online the next day but a negative impression may have been made on many readers.
People continue to write to the Camera defending Bob Yates and his record which is well and good. In some instances, though, the outrage and shock feel a bit overheated. The attack ad is offensive and surprising, but don’t we have a lot of practice tuning out this kind of garbage? The mailer says more about national politics than it does about our local scene. At the campaign events I attended or viewed online, candidates were mutually respectful, and audiences as well.
So, what to do? We can’t prevent national PACS or their state-level branches from mailing us stuff, but if election rules were violated, the WFP National PAC should be held accountable (and then maybe they’ll leave us alone next time). It’s our responsibility as educated voters to learn how to sift through mis/disinformation in whatever form it presents itself. As we search for candidates who we believe model civic virtue and will advocate for policies we support, we shouldn’t rely too much on flyers and mailers anyway; they say more about how much money a candidate has to spend than whether that person is qualified to serve.
Diane Schwemm, parksidediane@gmail.com Last year, I opposed moving our Council elections to even years, fearing increased partisanship and special interest influence. Despite Colorado’s voter-friendly laws ensuring equal ballot access annually, turnout spikes in even years due to high-profile state and federal races with substantial campaign funds. My concern was that aligning local elections with these cycles would intensify ideological divides and invite national-level polarization into our community’s decision-making processes.
It turns out I was correct about the nationalization of our elections but mistaken about the timing — it’s already happening. A national PAC based in Washington, D.C., managed to launch not just one, but two attack ads against Bob Yates. I guess the group was unfazed by the controversy sparked by their first attack ad; they doubled down and released a second one a couple of days ago. I believe it’s problematic for a national entity to interfere in Boulder’s affairs. They’re too remote to grasp the subtleties of our local politics, the stances of our candidates on local issues, and the specific needs of our community.
Our candidates run independently, and our elections are intended to be non-partisan, allowing voters to concentrate on issues rather than party affiliation. The national PAC’S attack ads not only undermine individual candidates but also threaten the very purpose of our local elections. To protect the integrity of our electoral process, I advocate for changes in local election laws to prevent such interference, averting a harmful precedent for the future.