Commentary by Ed McKeon
I'm a lifelong registered Democrat, and I'm running for Board of Education on the official Democratic slate in November. I'm also one of the founders of the Middletown Eye.
This afternoon, the Middletown Eye published, verbatim, a press release from the Democratic Town Committee which identifieded individuals who have a known alliance with Republican mayor Sebastian Giuliano, but who signed a petition in support of Democrat primary challenger Christine Bourne. The press release also included complete facsimiles of the petition documents.
The gist of the press release is that these signatures are sure proof that Bourne is running a mayoral campaign only to divert Democratic votes from Dan Drew.
While Bourne continues to deny that claim, there is no doubt that a three candidate race could hurt Drew, though it could also divert votes from Giuliano as well.
The Democrats have every legal right to examine petitions to verify that all signatures are authentic. The documents are indeed public. Still, the public identification of a few of those names, and their inclusion in a press release creates a chilling effect on the right to petition, the right to sign a petition and the democratic process.
In a system where patronage and retribution are the stuff of local lore, this close examination of petitions is likely to dampen the enthusiasm of anyone seeking signatures, or anyone willing to sign.
Recently I have been collecting signatures on a separate referendum issue. Several people have refused to sign because they expressed fear of retribution. I tried to convince them that worrying about retribution was uneccessary. Apparently I was naive.
While Democrats have the legal right to examine these documents, to "take names" for political reasons, or reasons of potential retribution is simply, and inarguably, wrong. I also think it's a huge political mistake with potential to backfire.
I expessed this view to the Democratic Town before we published the press release.
For the democratic process to work at its best, every citizen should be able to vote, campaign and sign petitions without fear that their actions will be held against them. I call upon all my Democratic colleagues and Republican opponents to pledge not to use the names of petition signers for political retribution in any way.
12 comments:
The cat is already out of the bag with the Democratic Town Committee using these names for the upcoming campaign. If you think they won't use them in the campaign then you haven't been paying attention the past 20 years.
My issue is with using names of those who are not public figures. What does the mayor's son have to do with it. He is not a public figure and should be left out of this kind of campaign.
Christine will get the necessary signatures and will go on to beat Drew either in the Democratic primary or in the general election as an independent. Given the state of our city, state and country, we do not need novices or puppets to manage our town. But, Christine will not beat the Mayor who has shown the leadership and guts that is needed these days. As a democrat I will continue to vote for Mayor Seb.
Amen. Nice to see you back on the Eye where you belong not writing for Patch. Love ya Ed! Keep the analytical commentary coming!
The Democratic Town Committee is shaking in their shoes and rightly so. There hold on the city of Middletown is about to disintegrate. Chris Bourne is out for justice, no more "Super 8" with the common council, no more B.O.E. antics, clean up the B.O.E. and restore peace once again in our city. My vote is for Ed for B.O.E. and Chris for Mayor! Please everyone GET OUT AND VOTE, you can
NOT complain about our city and B.O.E. if you don't cast your vote. Your vote may just be the deciding factor.
Ed, I agree with your sentiment 100%.
Jennifer Peifer
Good article Ed!
As my 13 yr old would say "no duh" that Christine Bourne is running just to pull the votes away from Drew. She admitted in todays MP editoral that she had plenty of people who wanted to sign but did not get a chance...so the mayor's peeps did not have to sign except to send a message...but hey its a free country so who the heck cares who signed it...its sad that it matters so much to people...this BS just discourages people from getting involved in anything in this town
The criticism of this press release because "this close examination of petitions is likely to dampen the enthusiasm of anyone seeking signatures, or anyone willing to sign" is weak at best.
First, it is disingenuous to suggest that the Democratic Town Council's review of the signatures on this petition is somehow new, unique or surprising. Both parties have carefully reviewing every such petition and every list of campaign donations carefully. The only thing that is unusual is that the DTC is publicly discussing it. If you claim to be surprised by this you are not naive, you are ignorant.
Second, the claim that "the public identification of a few of those names, and their inclusion in a press release creates a chilling effect on the right to petition, the right to sign a petition and the democratic process" and the attempt to tie this press release to a fear of retribution is specious on its face. The whole point of the press release is that the mayor and his inner circle have been instrumental in getting Christine Bourne on the ballot to run against the mayor. Clearly those people feel that a vote for Bourne is a vote for the mayor, which is a point worth making. These are people who are already the political "enemy" so where is the chilling effect in public disclosure? Maybe if those people had realized that their attempt to game the system this way would be exposed they wouldn't have signed, but it defies common sense to suggest that the people identified will be afraid of retribution because of their action in signing.
Will there be consequences for people who signed Bourne's petition? If you are a member of the Democratic Town Council, probably. But what is wrong with that? Doesn't every organization try to punish those that, in their view at least, put their own interests ahead of the organizations? This is what all organizations and political parties do, no surprise here. Certainly no one on the DTC who signed the petition would be surprised to learn that everyone on the DTC would know that they signed and that there would be consequences. Is there any reason to think that average Joe Citizen is going to be punished for signing Bourne's petition? The author implies that there is, but I haven't seen anything other than baseless allegations to support the claim.
These petitions, and petitions like the author's, are public information. It is obvious that they have to be, because the consequence of keeping them private is the risk of greater corruption. Making these names publicly available can have a chilling effect, but there is no alternative. Implying without any proof that a press release discussing this public information shows an intent to exact revenge also has a chilling effect, but there was an alternative to that.
Anonymous 9:03,
Obviously you have some fear of retribution, or you would have signed your comment with your actual name instead of hiding behind the shield of anonymity.
I feel that making a response to your "argument" is,to use a cliche, a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.
In one paragraph you say "the attempt to tie this press release to a fear of retribution is specious on its face," and in the very next you say" in the next you say: "Doesn't every organization try to punish those that, in their view at least, put their own interests ahead of the organizations?" Which leads me to suggest that you've defused your own argument.
And BTW, it's "those who."
As for the ridiculous assumption that every organization punishes those with individual interests, I can only guess that your exposure to organizations is severely limited, or that you associate with some shamefully sorry groups.
Everyone, no matter what their affiliation, should be confident that they can take place in the democratic process - signing petitions - without the fear of ridicule, chastisement or retribution. This is the good ole USA, anon, not North Korea.
As for any "Joe Citizen" who happens to work for the municipality, I can assure you that it's your own naivete which makes my assumptions or potential retribution appear to you as "baseless allegations."
Is there a chilling effect. I can tell you, from personal experience, that there is.
Finally, while the petitions are, without doubt, public information, and for good reason, you admit yourself that "making these names publicly available can have a chilling effect," but it is only the nefarious organization which would take such information, and use it against a citizen who is doing their civic duty.
Citizens should feel free to sign a petition without fear of having their motives, or loyalties questioned.
Unfortunately, the Democratic Town Committee has done both.
Its harder to knock down someone elses argument when you actually address the issues raised. Try to avoid misrepresenting my statements and deal with the issues actually raised.
You state "Still, the public identification of a few of those names, and their inclusion in a press release creates a chilling effect on the right to petition, the right to sign a petition and the democratic process.
I contend that stating in a press release that the mayor's inner circle played a significant role in getting Christine Bourne on the ballot to oppose the mayor does not have a chilling effect on democracy. It may have a chilling effect on those individuals who would like to game the system in order to hang onto power, but discouraging people from playing dirty is usually considered a good thing. As you helpfully pointed out, this is America, not North Korea. In America it is entirely appropriate to let the public know when a group of political insiders have sought to manipulate the system so that their candidate can hold onto power. Or do you know believe that no one should inform the public of the role big money such as the Koch brother have in our electorial system. Are you now concerned that their free exercise of speech will be chilled if the public knows what they are up to? The press release is not identifying or criticizing people who support Christine Bourne. It is only identifying those people who signed the petition but do not support her, but only want her on the ballot as a spoiler.
You say "it is only the nefarious organization which would take such information, and use it against a citizen who is doing their civic duty." I think it is only the nefarious organization who would attempt to abuse the system and then pretend they are doing their "civic duty." They are serving their own selfish interests, nothing more, nothing less.
Finally, you say "As for any "Joe Citizen" who happens to work for the municipality, I can assure you that it's your own naivete which makes my assumptions or potential retribution appear to you as "baseless allegations." I am curious when you became aware of this problem because yesterday you stated: "Several people have refused to sign [my petition] because they expressed fear of retribution. I tried to convince them that worrying about retribution was uneccessary. Apparently I was naive." So last week when you were getting signatures were you deliberately misleading people, or did you just become aware of the problem in the past few days. What was it that convinced you that average citizens should fear retribution from the DTC? You imply that it was the press release that changed your mind, but please point out to me anything in the press release that suggests that the DTC will take revenge. I see nothing in the press release that hints at any type of retribution. It simply lets the voters know that they mayor and his minions are a large percentage of Christine Bourne's supporters in her efforts to get on the ballot, and the voters ought to consider why.
4 out of 570 is a large part of the supporters? That doesn't make any sense The press release only named four people, sounds like a conspiracy to me
I helped circulate Ed's petition for the police chief referendum question, and I can say yes- public citizens and city employees feared retribution in signing. The many I spoke to feared retaliation from the municipality as their employer, or from co-workers who might disagree; some feared the police harassing them for their difference in opinion, others who knows who they were directing the anxiety they had in signing towards. I can say for every signature I got, I had someone else not disagree with the petition, but instead say they were not signing because he or she did not want any "trouble." I am NOT accusing the City, the Democrats or any other party, or the police department of retaliation, but It is MY opinion either the reality of retaliation, or the misconception of such rumored retaliation is a fear of many citizens. Whether it happens or not the issue should be addressed to stop it from happening, or dispel the myth of such occurrences. It's my opinion too many Middletown citiizens are afraid of the local government and local politics and I want to know why. Citizens have the right to feel safe in participating in government without having to live in fear for having an opinion.
Post a Comment