Candidate Ads, Coming Soon To An Inbox Near You

ooby writes "MSNBC reports that Bush and Kerry plan to shoot off a million or so emails to their closest friends. By using the Internet to distribute ads, presidential candidates believe they can reach more people using less money. I guess that's why they wrote that loophole in that awesome new spam law."

Comments

if they spam me

[cyrax777]

They will certanly not get my vote!!

Re:if they spam me

[Reverend528]

They're actually going to send spams advertising their opponent's campaigns.

Re:if they spam me

[iminplaya]

Looks like you might not be voting this year. :-)

-Vote for Nobody, because Nobody cares.

Re:if they spam me

[thogard]

You can vote by not selecting any of the people on the list. There are other things to vote for than the president. If enough people just don't vote for either of the idiots, then maybe the people running the parties will work harder to find decent canidates however in a typical election the number of people that don't pick one of the two major parties is so small it doesn't matter.

Re:if they spam me

[Anonymous Coward]

You can vote by not selecting any of the people on the list.

You mean write in candidates? Like maybe Mickey Mouse, Ben Kenobi, and of course, Steve Jobs?

At least with write-ins, your vote is recorded. If you don't vote for that office, that means that you didn't care enough to vote, and that the extremists who voted to select those candidates in the primaries win...

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"As much as I might like that sentiment, assuming Kerry gets the democratic nomination, who are you going to vote for?"

Howabout whoever your conscience tells you would be the best person for the job?

"There's no one else to vote for who would even stand an outside shot at winning the election."

It's thinking like that that has gotten us into this mess. Voting isn't about voting for the guy you think has the best chance of winning, voting is about voting for who you think is the best person for the job.

" Basically my question boils down to, if their choice wont make or break my vote for them, is there anyway to get politicians to make a stance on something short of having lots of money for campaign contributions?"

yes, vote your conscience. Until everyone votes their conscience, we'll be stuck in this dead end game of "lesser of two evils" every time. You can write letters, have demonstrations, etc... As long as they can get elected because you'll vote for them out of fear of someone else winning, they're not going to listen to you. Why should they? The money comes from their corporate masters, I mean backers, and your vote comes from your fear of the other candidate.

I'd rather vote my conscience and see four years of some guy I think is awful, than legitimize the election of someone I think is less awful by voting for them.

Re:if they spam me

[compass46]

If enough people just don't vote for either of the idiots, then maybe the people running the parties will work harder to find decent canidates however in a typical election the number of people that don't pick one of the two major parties is so small it doesn't matter.

Good point. I seriously think that today's political climate is designed to drive people away. For simplicity's sake we'll neglect the electoral college in this example. If only 10% of the electorate turns out and canidate "A" receives a majority of the total votes cast (which would be >5% of the total electorate) then canidate A wins. There is no incentive for change because someone will always win. Forget the fact that our government derives their legitamacy from the people. Most people I find aren't really aware of that and feel it is their duty to vote and support the system no matter what they're given to choose from.

In case you're wondering, I openly advocate not voting in the hopes that the current political climate will "go away" (not exist because the people no longer recognize it) and we can start with a fresh system. We did that once before remember... Think of it as a total scratch rewrite. :)

Re:if they spam me

[macdaddy]

Voting isn't about voting for the guy you think has the best chance of winning, voting is about voting for who you think is the best person for the job.

Not necessarily. It a perfect world, a utopian dream if you will, you would vote for who you think is the best man/woman for the job. However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want. We might all agree with what a person like Lieberman says and we might like a lot of what Sharpton says (but maybe not all of it) but we know there isn't a chance in hell that they'll win the 2004 elections. They have absolutely zlich electability. Nada. None. El Zero. It ain't gonna happen. A major change in the social and poltical views of America will not happen overnight. The first step is someone not quite as liberal as Lieberman or Sharpton. The first step is someone like Kerry or Edwards. The social masses are infinitely more likely to accept one of them for president than they are the other candidates. If we truly want a political change in the upcoming election then we must vote for the first step in our grand plan. We must vote the only person with electability. Doing anything else is a waste of your vote. Sure it's your right to vote for who you please but lets face facts people. If you don't vote for one of the candidates that can actually get elected (or a party that needs a certain percentage to be in the election next time) then you're wasting your vote. Of course voting out of the norm for your state is wasting your vote thanks to this damned electoral college, but that's another matter. You can't make a sweeping change overnight. Small steps people. Walk before you run a marathon.

Re:if they spam me

[Veridium]

"It a perfect world, a utopian dream if you will, you would vote for who you think is the best man/woman for the job."

Actually, in the world I live in now, that is exactly what I do.

"However this is a pipe dream and won't produce the results you want."

And voting for the lesser of two evils will?

"We might all agree with what a person like Lieberman says and we might like a lot of what Sharpton says (but maybe not all of it) but we know there isn't a chance in hell that they'll win the 2004 elections."

So? Your argument seems to be that I shouldn't vote my conscience because the person I'd vote for won't win. Therefore, I should vote for someone I don't think is the best person for the job, thereby ensuring that not only will my candidate not win, but the election results will demonstrate that no one voted for them, thus leading these 'leaders' to conclude that what my candidate stood for, nobody agrees with? Sounds like I'm throwing my vote away if you ask me.

"The first step is someone like Kerry or Edwards."

With all due respect, I heard this line of crap back in '92. The only difference between now and then, is I won't buy it this time. You think Kerry is going to change things, then you vote for him. Clinton came to power, and what did we have? Wars, wars, and more wars. Scandal, corruption, the DMCA, etc... It was the other side of the same coin, that quite frankly, I'm sick of. You want to continue the cycle that's been going on, vainly imgining that by repeating the mistakes of the past, you're going to get a different result in the future, then you do that.

I'm not buying into that line of thinking anymore. Like I said in my first post on this topic, I'd rather vote my conscience, and the rest of you with your daydreaming grand plans to change things, go along like sheep, believing the owned politicians, that somehow, they are the first step to change. When in reality, they are the very things that need changing.

"we truly want a political change in the upcoming election then we must vote for the first step in our grand plan."

Our grand plan? Who has the plan? I haven't seen it, no one asked for my input.

"The social masses are infinitely more likely to accept one of them for president than they are the other candidates."

I really don't care to waste my vote to appeal to the mob mentality. If the mob wants one of those people, then let them elect them. I have a conscience, and a duty and obligation to my society, to be ruled by that conscience and be true to myself. I will do this, and it won't matter how you try to spin it. I expect nothing less from you. So if you really think that thinking and voting the way you are arguing for is the best, then do so. I bear you no illwill, but in time, you will see the infinite loop that such things trap us in.

"Doing anything else is a waste of your vote."

On the contrary, doing anything other than voting your conscience, is throwing your vote away. I'm not part of your grand plan, like I said before, when did you get my input? I wouldn't vote lieberman either. Probably won't vote any candidate you've heard of. You can say I'm throwing my vote away, but I can look myself in the mirror every morning, and know that I spoke up for what I believe to be right. The rest of you simply chose the lesser of two evils.

"Walk before you run a marathon."

Exactly. The first step to change is refusing to vote along party lines, or for the lesser of two evils, and voting your conscience. If your conscience tells you to do one of the above, then do so. I bear no one any illwill for falling for the delusion I once fell for. But the only way to change things, is to take your stand as an individual, and quit imagining that you're part of some grand plan. You're not. Nobody planned anything with my input, did someone plan something with yours?

Re:if they spam me

[welshsocialist]

It's possible to vote for a write-in candidate with a touch-screen machine. I recently voted in the Democratic Presidential Primary in Virginia and there was an option on the machine to type in the name of a write-in candidate.

Re:if they spam me

[ogre57]

Dear Candidate,

Thank you for your spam. As one of the many Americans who believe that spammers are a somewhat lower life form than pedophiles, you can rest assured that the only vote you will receive from me is as a jury member in the felony trial you so clearly deserve.

Regards,

The solution

[Bendebecker]

Email them all back. See how they like it.

Re:The solution

[dustinbarbour]

won't work.. you think they actually read their emails? it would be my guess that the emails go through a few screeners first. so if the aim is to piss off some low-level peons, go right ahead. all i know is that those bastards better not be spamming me..

Re:The solution

[c1ay]

cc contact@ataconnect.org while you're at it to make sure they get enough copies to send to their friends. Everyone should probably forward their copy to darl@sco.com as well. He's hoping to have about $5 billion available that he could contribute to the campaign effort as well so I'm sure the candidates would really appreciate it.

Re:The solution

[TheIzzy]

Leave it to slashdot to have people completely overreact and blow things out of proportion. I actually see email as an effective means of campeigning.

According to the headlines, only about a million emails will be sent, and only to "close friends." That means less than 1% of the American population will see one of these emails, and I'd bet a pretty penny it won't just be in typical spam style (hint: it will actually be from a *real* address and company). The emails will probably be sent to people who have specifically given their addresses to the Republican/Democratic parties, or similar organizations that promote voting and voter education.

When it comes to campeigning, these guys are not stupid. They know people hate spam. But they also know if they use email in a legitimate fashion, it could actually help their cameign. Assuming they don't abuse this line of communication, I think it will prove beneficial in the long run.

Re:The solution

[MisanthropicProggram]

Mailwasher Software
I just send a bogus invalid email addresses back at them.

Re:The solution

[c1ay]

Maybe not though. According to Dave Barry there's at least 14 or 15 people that are not on the internet yet. This type of campaigning would miss these people.

Re:The solution

[gilroy]

Blockqouth the poster:

According to the headlines, only about a million emails will be sent, and only to "close friends."

Funny. You'd sort of think all of their "close friends" already know that they're running... This will be used to drum up new contributions. It's political spam, pure and simple.

Re:The solution

[boogahboogah]

Actually, I got lots of negative spam about democrats, presumable sent by Dubya folks, during the last election.

Didn't get any spam from the Democrats...

Re:The solution

[Savatte]

Get a webcam

Re:The solution

[Kohath]

Spam is sent randomly to people who don't want it. This email will probably be sent specifically to certain people who have a history of dealing with whichever candidate or party. That's just a guess based on the characterizations in the story.

Of course, this misses the point I made. You're not going to win the fight against spam by taking minor technical points and exaggerating them into a pseudo-scandal.

Spam is a real problem. It would be easier to convince people of that without you people distracting the public with fake problems.

Re:The solution

[Crypto Gnome]

Leave it to slashdot moderators to label a Brainless Troll as +5 Insightful.

Unlike YOU I actually read the article. The headline does not in any way mention "close friends" in fact, the article specifically says "to millions of the Democratic and Republican rank-and-file" which not only is not "only about a million" it actually sounds like another way of saying anyone and everyone we can find an email address for and even the vaguest excuse to claim they might possibly be interested.

Even the writer of the articl is quick to admit how devious and underhanded this scheme is "And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law, including the statement by the candidate of "I approved this ad" that has given some campaigns pause before launching negative political ads. Web videos have the potential to be nastier than the typical TV ad."

This is not even slightly about "save the environment" and other tree-hugging fantasies it's purely and simply a loophole they've carefully crafted so that they can circumvent some very important campaign laws.

Re:The solution

[Technician]

According to the headlines, only about a million emails will be sent, and only to "close friends."

Funny, know how many close friends want me to get body parts enhanced, house refinanced, visit this neat website,....

Re:The solution

[BHearsum]

Overreact?! They're SPAMMING FOR VOTES. It's as simple as that. Political campaigns are treated as a form of marketing, so why the hell should they be allowed to spam?

Re:The solution

[ratamacue]

a loophole they've carefully crafted so that they can circumvent some very important campaign laws

That's impossible. Government would never act in self-interest. They represent us, not themselves. For the people, by the people.

This will get ugly

[erick99]

This is what will allow this form of campaigning to get very ugly.

And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law, including the statement by the candidate of "I approved this ad" that has given some campaigns pause before launching negative political ads. Web videos have the potential to be nastier than the typical TV ad.

I don't think either campaign will be able to avoid the tempation. I also don't think the virus writers will be able to hold back either...

Happy Trails!

Erick

Re:This will get ugly

[LostCluster]

We've already seen this set of loopholes exploited by the Bush team who e-mailed out an anti-Kerry video that doesn't contain the "I approve..." video from Bush that would be required if it was placed as a TV ad. Not too many people saw the e-mailed ad, but the major news organizations did and the cable networks all felt obligated to run the 30 second a few times amid several segments that discussed it.

It's not exactly an ad that's destined for the hall of fame of political advertising. This is far too early in the campaign to be going negative. It really seems like we're in for a bumpy ride of an election, especially if Kerry decides to return fire.

Re:This will get ugly

[demachina]

Its not well known but George W. learned dirty campaign tricks as far back as the 1972 Senate campaign which is at the heart of his Alabama National Gaurd controversy. This campaign is noteworthy because Bush's team, though perhaps not him personally, apparently doctored and spliced audio tapes of their Democratic opponent so he appeared to say that he was in favor of busing to force desegration at a time when this was the kiss of death for a politician in Alabama. It didn't work but they tried. Indications are the picture of Kerry behind Jane Fonda doing the rounds this week is also a faked.

Also in 1972 Karl Rove "admitted using a false identity to gain entry to the campaign offices of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon. He admitted stealing letterhead stationary and sending out 1,000 fake invitations to the campaign headquarters opening, promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing." He was cleared after a Republican party investigation by none other than George H.W. Bush. After all, this was 1972 when Nixon and the Republicans were using dirty tricks on a massive scale in an effort to rig elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/ca mp aigns/wh2000/stories/rove072399.htm
http://www.so utherner.net/blog/awolbush.html

The southerner article, among others, raises the possibility George W. Bush refused to take his National Gaurd physical in 1972, which caused him to be grounded, because this was the year drug testing was instituted by the gaurd and reserves. Its likely he would have failed because he was known to indulge in cocaine and a marijuana while in Alabama, and may have done community service in Texas around this time to have a cocaine charge cleared off his record.

All indications are he received disciplinary action for refusing the physical, and a number of other transgressions, which is why he was transfered to the reserves, normally a sign of punishment for Gaurdsmen, which is where he was when he was finally discharged.

Its hard to figure out all of the machinations of his military service since there is at least a possibility Bush campaign operatives were given the chance to purge his military files of anything negative in the late 1990's.

It is pretty clear that he moved to Alabama without getting Gaurd approval for the transfer. He applied after the fact for a postal unit, which was denied, since the Gaurd frowns on expensive pilots becoming postal workers. They finally transfered him to a reconnaisance unit though they didn't have the F-102's he was qualified for.

The only reason he got in to the Gaurd in the first place was family connections which moved him from the bottom of the list, and destined for Vietnam, to the top of Texas Air National Country Club flying obsolete fighters that would never get sent to Vietnam.

But what I don't understand is,

[pheared]

With all this talk about how much everyone hates spam, even legislation supporting this idea, why would a candidate want to even come close to looking like they are spamming?

It seems like it's too dangerous. Although, I guess there is a reason why spammers continue to spam. They really want that walking-around-in-their-underwear-at-walmart-scopi ng-the-latest-penis-enhacement-pills crowd. It almost makes sense when you consider it that way.

Re:But what I don't understand is,

[Guppy06]

"With all this talk about how much everyone hates spam, even legislation supporting this idea, why would a candidate want to even come close to looking like they are spamming?"

For the same reason they continue with political attack ads and the like even though nobody likes them: Everybody else is doing it, so why not? You may lose votes, but it certainly won't give votes to the other guy since they're doing it, too. Don't forget that many of the same members of Congress that supported the national do-not-call list still use telephone campaigning. Come to think of it, the "everybody else is doing it..." bit also explains much of their behavior while in office (re: USA PATRIOT Act).

Then there's the additional reason "Because it works."

"It seems like it's too dangerous."

It's kinda like "Mutually Assured Destruction." They'll all stop as soon as everybody else stops.

Re:But what I don't understand is,

[JuggleGeek]

He states that the individual state licenses we use now should change to a national standard, and that you should use them every time you log onto a computer, purchase liquor (and apparently anything else). And telling the government about every time you log on, every time you buy a 6 pack, and things like that don't sound invasive to you?

Maybe you just didn't read the article.

Email? What about phone?!

[AKAImBatman]

I've gotten 3 or so phone calls from *#$#$ Kerry supporters. When the last one started off on all the great things Kerry was going to do, I basically said "That's exactly why I'm not voting for him. Thanks for calling!"

Of course, I probably wouldn't be so annoyed if his platform didn't amount to nothing more than "I'm not Bush!" As a Senator, he's voted in favor of just about everything that Slashdotters despise. Why do you people like this guy?

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you said why we like this guy.

"I'm not Bush!"

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[AKAImBatman]

I think you said why we like this guy.

"I'm not Bush!"

I suppose the saying, "The devil you know..." would be kind of lost on you, huh?

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you people like this guy?

Because he's not Bush, and seems to be the only candidate who can say that and actually stands a chance at winning.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[AKAImBatman]

Because he's not Bush, and seems to be the only candidate who can say that and actually stands a chance at winning.

Is that really a good thing? Let's think about this for a moment. You want to elect someone into the highest office in the country based on the fact that you don't like the current office holder. Despite the fact that the current office holder has been mildly to outright friendly to the goals of us geeks, you want to replace him with someone who stands a chance of promoting legislation and leadership that will give more power to long term copyrights, shut down the space program, enact more DMCA type laws, promote outsourcing of our jobs, etc., etc., etc.

You may like that idea, but some of us are a little more intelligent. Sometimes the devil you know is better than the one you don't know.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[Guppy06]

Last year we here in Louisiana had a gubenatorial run-off. The year before we had an ugly US Senate run-off where both sides did copious amounts of telephone campaigning (canned messages from Bush, Daschle, et al) which pretty much got everybody angry (or so they say, there were still more voters in the run-off than the open primary).

At any rate, last year there was very little telephone campaigning, except towards the end there were a few calls here and there at annoying hours for one candidate, and when word got around that candidate accused his competitor of hosting the telephoning in order to frame him.

Are you sure those calls are really from Kerry supporters?

One of the two reasons I'm not happy about "campaign finance reform" is that focusing more on limits and less on accountability actually helps things like this happen. The more otherwise legitimate contributions are forced to be made in roundabout manners, the more chaffe the truly despicable campaign practices have to hide among.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[nomadic]

Despite the fact that the current office holder has been mildly to outright friendly to the goals of us geeks

My goals are environmental protection, government regulation of corporations, universal healthcare, and civil rights.

I don't think his voting record looks that bad.

When you say "us geeks" I think you mean "me".

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[DigiShaman]

Environmental protection = USA too cost prohibitive. Let's move manufacturing jobs overseas to China, India, Africa, and Japan

Government regulation = throwing the proverbial monkey wrench into a free economy. Let's make jobs wages to cost prohibitive. Let's oursource our white collar jobs to China, India, Africa, and..elsewhere.

Universal Healthcare = You will be taxed so hard that eventually we will all be forced to suck on the governmental titty. And my health is fine, unless it's life threatening, I don't need a stinkin doctor.

Civil rights = Political correctness at the expense of US security.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[wmspringer]

Mostly, that he's not Bush :-)

Personally, Kerry wouldn't be my first choice for president. But for me, if it's between him and Bush, Kerry wins in a landslide. For the last 3 years I haven't been able to open a newspaper without reading about Bush/the republicans doing something I disagreed with.

Re:Email? What about phone?!

[That's Unpossible!]

Personally, I like bush.

Oh, you said "Bush." Sorry...

It's OK

[Amsterdam Vallon]

At least this is IMPORTANT spam. Granted, it's still spam, but the fate of our great country depends on it.

I call on all Americans to not write spam filters for this. We should read what our candidates have to say.

I love my country more than anything else, and want this 2004 election to truly make a differences.

Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[Skynyrd]

I'm not too impressed with anybody in the race, but if I'm getting spam from them - there's no way in hell I'd vote for them.

Their spam will be sent back. Their "voter feedback" form will be used to explain why I would never buy a product advertised by spam - including the President.

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[DarkSarin]

There is only one solution in my eye...vote libertarian.

Of course, it really makes me want to form a new political party--the Technocrats. This party would focus on the use of technology to better the lives of everyone, and go by the philosophy that technology should be placed in the hands of as many people as possible. This, of course, can best be done by making sure everyone has the highest possible income, and that taxes are low. (I will figure out a way to justify it...don't worry).

All right. Who's in?

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[starm_]

Am I the only one who thinks that text is a much better medium that television for political campaigning? With television parties are force to blurt out only the catchy slogans that alure the general public because of time constraints.

With text, tey can explain much more what their vision is. They can put links to more information. They can educate the public on their views much better.

I mean it depends on what they do with it, but I think it could have potential.

Re:Hard enough to find a good candidate...

[Just Some Guy]

I'm not too impressed with anybody in the race, but if I'm getting spam from them - there's no way in hell I'd vote for them.

So, the most important issue in your world is spam? Seriously? You don't care about foreign relations, or the economy, or health care, or tort reform, or the DMCA, or the Patriot Act, or anything else at all more than you care about whether you get a cold-call email from the candidate in question?

Where is this place you live, and could you tell me how to get there? In the real world, spam is annoying, but there are a lot of more important things to get wound up about.

who's paying?

[gtrubetskoy]

So are they going to make my bandwidth tax-deductable?

Oh please...

[WIAKywbfatw]

Which would you prefer:

1. Junk mail, which has a realworld cost (printing paper means felling trees); or

2. An email, which has negligible cost and is easily disposed of by deletion?

Re:Oh please...

[Motherfucking Shit]

Which would you prefer:

1. Junk mail, which has a realworld cost (printing paper means felling trees); or

2. An email, which has negligible cost and is easily disposed of by deletion?

I think I'd prefer the one that actually costs the candidate some money to send. If you want to send me your unsolicited message, then by God you ought to be the one paying for it, even if you are the leader of the free world.

Re:Oh please...

[Fancia]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If, during a week's vacation, physical junk mail is delivered in such quantities that it overflows my porch and causes the post office to begin burning or returning to sender all of my mail, including actual personal mail *and* each piece of junk mail can end up costing *me* and not the sender, then I'll hate it more than I hate spam.

Re:Oh please...

[cyberformer]

This tradeoff would work if every spam message actually replaced a piece of physical junk mail. The problem is that a junk mailer can send millions of spams for the cost of one paper flyer, and they do.

Does anyone know if spam has actually decreased the volume of paper junk mail, or at least slowed its increase? My guess is that it probably hasn't, except in a few specialist areas such as press release distribution.

Re:Oh please...

[Motherfucking Shit]

Federal elected officials get unlimited free (pronounced "payed for by taxes") postage, so you're paying for the paper junk mail too.

You're referring to the franking privilege, but your interpretation is overly broad. Postage is provided free of charge for official business only, with restrictions, and campaign mailings do not qualify. There are more severe restrictions placed upon franked mailings during election years, and nearly any franked mailing within 60 days of any election in which the sender is a candidate is totally prohibited unless it's clearly official business, to cut down on "shadow" campaign mailings.

There are some exceptions. A lot of people know the factoid about Jackie Kennedy having free use of the USPS for the remainder of her life, but few realize that all first ladies have that privilege. So do all former Presidents. There are restrictions here too; oddly enough, the franking privilege for ex-Presidents and ex-First Ladies is only good for personal mail. Go figure, they have to pay for their personal postage while they're in power, but they get it free forever after that!

You can see some of the regulations in the USPS Domestic Mail Manual, S E050. The 60 day rule regarding elections and franked mailings is not mentioned here but I'm certain of it.

Full disclosure: I spent 5 years working for a commercial mail receiving agency (CMRA) and I mostly knew the DMM inside and out. That was 5 years ago, and things have certainly changed, but I was able to find the franked mail guidelines easily enough in the current DMM.

There is only one message I'll respond to:

[Bendebecker]

Na-na-na-na-na, Na-na-na-na-na, Leader!
Na-na-na-na-na, Na-na-na-na-na, Leader!

D'oh!

Why spam laws will always have exceptions

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just like the "do no call" list. Laws which prohibit political speech will not hold up in court.

Re:Why spam laws will always have exceptions

[gcaseye6677]

Can I drive around in a truck with a loudspeaker on the roof making political speeches all night long in your neighborhood? It is not unconstitutional to have SOME restrictions on political speech. If the speech is made in a way that constitutes a public nuisance, it can certainly be restricted. Sending email in a manner that uses other peoples' resources without compensation, as spammers typically do, can and should be outlawed along with other spam. If candidates want to send email using equipment or services that they pay for, and using a reasonable unsubscribe policy, that probably could not be prohibited. Just like any other form of communication, some reasonable restrictions are constitutional, but a blanket ban would not be.

Re:Why spam laws will always have exceptions

[Guppy06]

IMO, political campaigning is about as much "speech" as pornography. We're talking about Congress: if it won't hold up in court, then they'll change the laws to make it hold up in court. This is less that and more about Congress not willing to give up their little perks and privileges (like ignoring traffic laws!).

A little thing like the Twenty-Seventh Amendment doesn't seem to slow them down, so why should a silly little thing like anti-spam laws get in their way? After all, they just made sure you wouldn't be able to sue them for trespassing on your hardware with their CAN SPAM law.

Re:Why spam laws will always have exceptions

[timmarhy]

again, dribble. SPAM IS NOT FREE SPEECH!!!! free speech is the ablity to say what you want, not the ablity to force people to listen!!!

If they spam me....

[LordKazan]

If kerry spams me -- i'll send an email to his campaign HQ speaking about the evils of spam

If bush spams me - i'll send an email back bitching him out for sending me an unsolicited email and continue on to bitching him out for being a complete retard

Adult content filter

[Michael Crutcher]

Bush might try to send me some email to try to solicit a contribution but I'm reasonably sure that my adult content filter will delete it.

If I can devise a Lurch filter I might be able to avoid any messages from Kerry too.

The final straw

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess politicians feel they have alienated the electorate enough. Wait until the spam starts propagating to your friends, installing zombies, etc.

Sure

[barenaked]

Sure it's annoying but it sounds like a good strategy to me.... Hell maybe Kerry oughta send out "VOTE BUSH" E-mails. Sure would get people riled up at Bush

Candidate spoofing

[irhtfp]

I can see spoofing (as in faking the source of) these types of emails to become very common.

In fact, it was the first thing I thought of! How will I know whether the email I got was really from the candidate who supposedly sent it?

Re:Candidate spoofing

[glpierce]

I don't think it will take long for worms/viruses to take advantage of this, either. "Attached is a special message from John Kerry!"

What Spam

[USAPatriot]

The article doesn't say anything about you and me receiving "spam", or unsolicited bulk email from these campaigns.

It only refers to their respective rank-and-file, I guess these people have signed up on some list to receive them.

Once again, Slashdot hypes and puffs something up to be more than it really is. No need to get worked up over "Your Rights".

e-voting exploits

[maliabu]

wow, in an e-voting scenario, this can-spam campaign will probably run some windows exploits and automatically vote on behalf of you.

The most interesting question . . .

[Nakito]

. . . is this: Where are they obtaining the email addresses for these mass mailings? The article states that they have "millions" of addresses. I find it hard to believe that millions of people have opted in to receive political email. I wonder if they political parties are instead using the same kinds of purchased email databases used by other large-scale spammers.

Re:The most interesting question . . .

[Peyna]

Perhaps the millions of people that e-mailed them?

Re:The most interesting question . . .

[qtp]

I find it hard to believe that millions of people have opted in to receive political email.

Your faith in the intelligence and wisdom of your fellow humans is admirable, and I hope that someday I too will be capable of such strong belief in in the higher qualities of man, despite such overmounting evidence to the contrary.

Re:Been getting similar things for awhile(maybe)

[slavitos]

I have! I think I've been getting both democratic and republican emails... Yet another reason to vote LIBERTARIAN!

Caucuses and Spammaries

[corby]

I gave to a Presidential campaign during the 2000 cycle. Over the next few months, I was deluged with snail mail and phone calls begging me for more money. I found it very frustrating and invasive. This year, I tried to give to a candidate's campaign through his website, but the process required me to provide an e-mail address that was verifiably mine. I did not complete the donation.

I will give to a Presidential campaign that I support when I can check a box that says, 'Do not spam or harass me.' (Or when I can provide darl@sco.com as my e-mail address) But not before then, I'm afraid.

Re:Caucuses and Spammaries

[rongage]

Come on dude, this is SOOO easy to deal with....

• adduser tempusername
• use tempusername@domain.com as your email address
• wait for confirmation email to come in
• userdel -r tempusername
• let the idiots spam away at a non-existant address
• ???
• Profit.... (sorry, couldn't resist)

Re:Caucuses and Spammaries

[buysse]

I think that identity verification is required by campaign finance laws. There are limits on each individual's contribution -- they need to at least make a good faith effort to enforce that.

But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[calmdude]

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens, but what are you going to do about it? It's a two-party system...you HAVE to vote for one of us!!

Man: He's right, this is a two-party system!

Second Man: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.

Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away! (evil laugh)

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[pben]

The only vote that you thow away is one where you vote for someone because they could win. If you don't think that he or she is the best, you are only encouraging policies that you don't believe in.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[DebianRcksLindowsLie]

The problem with not voting is that you get lulled into complacency, rather than the only downside being that your candidate didn't get elected. It's VERY important to vote, even if your person doesn't win. Staying up on the state of affairs is what keeps politicians on their toes, no matter where you are.

--
Cast your vote for choice. Check out the link below, and learn about the nastiness in Linux politics.

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[sk8king]

The only problem I can see with not voting for your given reasons is that you are then indistinguishable from the 50% that didn't vote because they're too lazy or didn't care.

I've heard of purposely wrecking your ballot. Do they count wrecked ballots officially?

Re:But you HAVE to vote for one of them...

[4of12]

The only vote that you thow away is one where you vote for someone because they could win.

Sadly, many people vote "for a winner" or because a candidate appears to have "momentum".

Exhibit A: Democratic primaries in the U.S.

OTOH, how much comfort do supporters of Nader's Green Party Presidential campaign in 2000 take in their principled stand not to elect Al "Lesser Evil" Gore, especially now that the country has experienced 3 years under Geroge W. Bush?

Perspective

[COBOL/MVS]

You could think of all the paper you won't have stuffed in the door to your apartment/house thanks to email.

Seriously, how could you argue that this is spam? And how is this any different than putting up a billboard, stuffing flyers in your windshield wipers or putting ads on tv?

Other than the usual "I'm for America and the American worker" blatherskite that either candidate will put out, you may find some substance if you dig deep enough. How else are you going to reach the public at large who would otherwise just as soon not vote? How else are you going to get an otherwise issue ignorant public educated on what you stand for and to get excited about your position? What's it going to take to get you to ask questions and find the answers about the next four years?

Spam? No. Candidate education? Yes.

OT: Political culture

[E_elven]

>I don't think either campaign will be able to avoid the tempation. I also don't think the virus writers will be able to hold back either...

Everybody thinks Kerry is going to get the nomination and that's why he probably will. Not saying he's any better or worse than any of the other guys, but he's played his media cards well.

I'd personally go with Kuchinich since he's the most sensible of the lot (crazy as hell, but sensible.)

My advice: vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, be it one of the main two or one of the no-shot independents. Only if absolutely none of them appeal to you, vote *against* the person you don't want to win. And under no circumstances abstain from voting. Unlike some places, they won't cancel the elections because of low turnout.

Hell, even Russia has the 'none of the above' option. If 30% votes none, the election is cancelled.

Re:OT: Political culture

[nomadic]

My advice: vote for whomever you think is the best candidate, be it one of the main two or one of the no-shot independents.

That's not how democracy works. Democracy has ALWAYS been about trying to effect change through your vote. Voting for a fringe candidate doesn't effect anything.

For example, I personally think Bush should be voted out of office, and I'd rather vote for someone who has a chance of winning than trading my vote for a little personal satisfaction.

Re:OT: Political culture

[HBI]

Everybody thinks Kerry is going to get the nomination and that's why he probably will. Not saying he's any better or worse than any of the other guys, but he's played his media cards well.

If that means sandbagging Dean with that stupid cheer sequence in Iowa, courtesy of Kerry's media connections, then yeah, you're right.

If you hear the original tape you can't even hear Dean.

I had a feeling an attempt like this would be made by the Democrat Old Guard. I'm surprised that it worked, is all. I once again underestimated the stupidity of the general public.

I'm not a Dean supporter at all, i'm a Republican, but this is disturbing nonetheless. Dean had some serious support that completely eroded away due to a single sound bite.

Re:OT: Political culture

[E_elven]

It's not just that.. somehow the American political culture is heavily bandwagony -a trend that's much less prominent in the other five or so cultures I've witnessed an election in.

The key is to have the media spin you as the likely winner. It will make you so. Kind of like if Greenspan says things are looking down, they suddenly do so because, well, Greenspan said so and it must be true so let me just put this money under my mattress.

Re:OT: Political culture

[QuasiCoLtd]

And thanks to that mentality we will ALWAYS have a 2 party system in the US, which is little better than an Oligarcy. It is my personal belief that If all Americans voted for the candiate they truly want in office elections would turn out much differently. Unfortunately the media has brainwashed us all into believing that only the Dems and Reps matter. How often do you see any Newspaper or news show interview anyone from a non Dem/Rep party? And I'm not talking about Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, or Jesse Ventura, the only reason they were given media attention was because of their fame and their novelty, not because anyone cared to see them elected (and when the Ventura thing backfired and he DID get elected look how they treated him). People simply MUST start voting whats in their hearts and more importantly, LEAVE THE FUCKING HOUSE AND VOTE. As a Libertarian I see some problems with mandatory voting but its looking like the only way to get a real change here at home.

Re:OT: Political culture

[nomadic]

I don't know where people got it into their head that a 2 party system is somehow not democratic. Both parties have a wide spectrum in their members, far more than the political parties you find in other countries. People didn't vote for Perot because he was obviously unfit to fulfill his duties, they didn't vote Nader because they don't believe in his policies, and they don't vote libertarian not because they haven't heard of it but because the vast majority of the people in this country don't believe in the libertarian positions.

Re:OT: Political culture

[gcaseye6677]

Dean's support being eroded by the scream is a myth. He never really had all that much support. Remember the scream came AFTER losing the Iowa primary by quite a lot of votes. Dean made a lot of money early on, but pretty soon all the people who were going to donate money on the internet had donated already. His actual numbers were pretty low, in spite of media hype. Its not surprising, considering Dean has the opposite position of the average American on just about every political issue.

Re:OT: Political culture

[The Snowman]

And thanks to that mentality we will ALWAYS have a 2 party system in the US, which is little better than an Oligarcy. It is my personal belief that If all Americans voted for the candiate they truly want in office elections would turn out much differently.

Our presidential election system is oligarchy. Congressional elections are not quite so bad, but close. The sad truth is, most people do not realize that there are more parties -- the republicans and democrats have dominated politics for so long that people assume they are the only ones out there. Yes, people realize there are other ones, but usually just parties like the green party that are viewed as a bunch of hippies who don't bathe. They are not to be taken seriously.

I'd like to have a "none of the above" option, abolishment of the electoral college, and multiple votes -- vote for all the guys you like, none of the ones you dislike. Whoever has the most votes gets elected. And change the ballot rules to make it easier for third parties to get on all the states' ballots.

The problem is, these changes would dimish the two-party stranglehold on elected offices, and they are the same people who would have to approve it (most likely as an amendment). That will never happen.

Re:OT: Political culture

[The Snowman]

I don't know where people got it into their head that a 2 party system is somehow not democratic.

Democracy is about choice. As it stands right now, the only way I have to show my displeasure in both viable options (republican and democrat) is not to vote -- which is undemocratic.

Re:OT: Political culture

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy is about choice. As it stands right now, the only way I have to show my displeasure in both viable options (republican and democrat) is not to vote -- which is undemocratic.

Where do I begin? Yes, democracy requires choice, but it doesn't require more choices. The problem with US elections is that we are presented with a choice between a Republican or a Democrat, both of whom hold positions so close together on so many issues that there is no difference. That's because deviating from a certain small territory throws the election to the other party. The choice we are never given is whether to take powers away from the government entirely. We only get to choice who will wield them.

Having only Democrats and Republicans to choose from isn't undemocratic. It just emphasizes the flaws in democracy. Personally, I support a constitutional democracy/monarchy/republic/whatever. Constitutionally limit the power of government to defense, police and courts. Create a separation of powers between branches that don't ever answer to each other. And then the only differences between the choices of people to run it will be simple. First, are they actually competent? Second, are they corrupt, handing contracts to buddies? Since incompetence won't benefit anyone, it should be avoidable. And since corruption benefits a few at the expense of all the tax-payers, there's an incentive to keep it to a minimum.

Re:OT: Political culture

[ogre57]

Er, spelling? Clearly there is less practical difference than exists between ketchup and catsup.

Re:OT: Political culture

[UserGoogol]

No, we're going to always have a 2 party system because we use "First past the post." The spoiler effect is too damned strong there. Third party candidates tend to help the party of the big two that it resembles least.

Although maybe if the Libertarians and the Greens could manage to take votes from the Democats and Republicans equally, third parties might be able to rise in power. (Although there are probably quite a few more Democratic-Libertarians than there are Republican-Greens.)

Now, if we used "Instant Runoff Voting" or "Approval Voting," this problem wouldn't be as big a deal.

Re:OT: Political culture

[demachina]

"Dean has the opposite position of the average American on just about every political issue."

This is an odd assertion. I think its widely recognized that Dean was the only Democrat with the hutzpah to:

- attack Bush
- oppose the Patriot Act
- oppose the Iraq war both for the deception used in selling it and the mess its proving to be
- denounce special interests and the way they are outright purchasing our government

Dean's fortunes really turned because Kerry, in particular, stole his message when he realized it was resonating with the majority of Democrats if not half the electorate as a whole. This leaves us with a bizarre hypocrisy where Kerry is now critical of the war in Iraq though he voted for it. He is critical of the Patriot Act though he voted for it and may have written predecessors of it. He is criticizing special interests though he takes more special interest money than anyone in the Senate.

A real plus about Kerry is, if you don't like his positions on the issues, you can just wait a while and he will flip sides to the one you like. Of course he also flips from positions you like to ones you don't with equal randomness. He is completely devoid of conviction which means he is "electable".

In all fairness, Dean did a lot of damage to himself when he stuck his foot in his mouth a few times on things like Saddam and Bin Laden. Its real hard to be a loose cannon, and take controversial positions, and also not stick your foot in your mouth sometimes.

If it hadn't been for Dean the Democrats would have gone in to this election cowering in fear of Bush's invincibility and they would have gone down in flames. Now they at least have a chance since Dean gave them a backbone. Dean also made the first attempt in a while to actually restore democracy to this screwed up country by getting ordinary people involved in politics again, especially with the aid of the Internet which is likely to be the only thing that might save democracy in America. Unfortunately all those people are tasting the bitter pill of how the establishment and the media destroy anyone trying to restore actual democracy, with a little d, to this country. End result is we will have two wealthy aristocrats, both Yale grads, both members of Skull and Bones squaring off in November, to see whether we will have an establishment Democrat or an establishment Republican taking their turn in the White House.

Dean might have said stupid things about Bin Laden, but its not quite as bad as the Bush family having intimate ties to the Bin Laden family. Bush also hushed up the extent Saudi Arabia was involved in 9/11 at the same time they were trying to pin it on Iraq which was probably the country in the Middle East that had the least involvement with Al Quaida, Bathists being secular socialists, not fundementalists, who claim to be Muslim mostly out of convenience. It still seems to be completely lost on Americans, smart people that they are, that the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi for the most part. There were no Iraqi's.

Re:OT: Political culture

[overunderunderdone]

And thanks to that mentality we will ALWAYS have a 2 party system in the US, which is little better than an Oligarcy.

I get tired of the complaints about the two party system, it has it's problems but I think it is superior to most multi-party schemes. A multi-party system where only a plurality is required to win would give us elected officials that only had the support of small minorities. A system which features a run-off between the top two candidates is back to a "lesser of two evils" situation BOTH of which may represent only a small fraction of the population. The two party system provides for a wide array of factions to put forward their candidates (in the primaries) but to emerge with a consensus candidate with broad support and an eventual winner with (in most cases ;) the support of a majority.

There were 9 different Democrats running representing a reasonably wide variety of viewpoints. You have (or had) a choice of a moderate hawk (lieberman), a super-leftist (Kucinnich) a liberal pacifist (Dean), a southern populist (Edwards), a northern liberal (Kerry), a black populist (Sharpton), a union candidate (Gephardt). Over the course of the primaries where each faction will have the chance to support their favored candidate they will end up with a consensus candidate who is at least palatable to each of the factions.

The Republicans of course don't have such a range of choices this time around but they DID last time around (McCain, Baur, Keyes, Forbes et al) and Bush was the consensus candidate - you might think of him as either the greater or lesser of two evils, but face the fact that he was the first choice of some people and at least acceptable to a lot more. If he was wildly unpopular with any significant faction within the Republican party he would face a primary challenge.

The dissatisfaction with this system I think has less to do with it failing to provide voters with choices but with voters failing choose the way you want them to.

Re:OT: Political culture

[HBI]

He wasn't campaigning in Iowa, officially. he had gone the Clinton route and not campaigned in Iowa.

The assumption then, as now, was that the farmer and union votes would determine Iowa and it was fairly likely Gephardt would win there.

Kerry's showing in Iowa was the only surprise.

Re:OT: Political culture

[CatPieMan]

Wait, is this a well written, well thought out, political argument on slashdot? Can't possibly be. All most of the comments here are "Party X Sucks" or "Candidate B is a luser".

Although I am not a Democrat (nor am I really a Republican, I am only registered as such b/c in my home town you can't say you are an 'independent' and actually have people listen to you) I would have rather seen a Dean vs Bush race (as Dean actually had some original ideas), but knew it would never happen.

I think (although I may be wrong on this) that one of the problems with Dean is that he was seen by most people as the 'anti-Bush', and while this may get a lot of extreme leftists out and shouting 'Go Dean', the extremes scare away normal people. Beyond that, to be the anti of something, the something must exist. Most people felt that Dean is nothing without Bush (how's that for irony). Before you call me names, hear me out on this.

Perception is the key here. If I see a candidate that I feel is the anti-Bush, as soon as Bush isn't around, what does he stand for? While you have to admire that he would so vocally issue a challange to the current president, without the +, what do you have to compare the - to (talking about electrical charges here)? '-' can not exist without '+' (or, what is 'good' without 'bad' and vice versa), and thus for many, it was percieved that Dean could not survive without Bush.

Take it however you want, even make me an enemy if you wish. I still want to say good job a well written argument.

-CPM

And afterwards...

[MikeXpop]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

This is dumber than spam

[DeathToBill]

Spammers don't need you the way a candidate does. Most spammers have already annoyed most people, and expect that their emails will get deleted/filtered by 99% of people. Candidates need a large percentage of the population to support them, so campaigning in a way that loses you more people than you gain (such as spamming them) is not a Good Thing (TM).

Thank God Australia hasn't gotten this far... yet...

Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole"?

[admiral-v]

IAAL

The anti-spam law was limited in scope for constitutional reasons. The bill focused on content such as obscenity which could be regulated anyway based on established legal principles.

I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, based on the reasoning that people find deleting the messages annoying.

Here are some legal concepts I've heard people trying to use to support anti-spam legsilation.

"Captive Audience": This concept, though related to the issue at hand, does not support anti-spam legislation. The fact that you receive the message in your inbox and then have to delete it is directly analogous to the snail-mail equivalent. Just because you have to look away when someone wears a "Fuck the Draft" jacket that offends you doesn't mean your rights have been infringed.

"Time Place and Manner": This legal concept in all likelihood does not apply here. Though it's true that mass spam creates a nuissance on the part of the receiver, laws that inhibit speech need to allow an alternative method of expression. A blanket spam ban would offer no alternatives.

Worry about your friends... not the campaigns

[usn2fsu03]

I am active in politics (volunter for campaigns, member of campus political organization, etc.)

I've never received unsolicited e-mail directly from any campaign, political committee, think tank, etc.

I do, however, receive at least a forward a day from my other politically active friends from one of the lists their subscribed to. And yes the incoming rate has increased substantially since the presidential campaign has started.

Like the article says "Sent out as links in e-mails, Web videos can easily be forwarded by the original recipients to scores of people, unlike direct mail that may end up in the trash."

The campaigns do not need to spam people directly, so they won't. It will be the campaigns followers who will do the spamming.

Bush and Kerry didn't *write* the thing!

[ragingmime]

As a senator, John Kerry may have given his vote, and as President, George Bush signed it, but these two wrote it, not Bush or Kerry. The CAN-SPAM act may be pretty bad, but Bush and Kerry didn't put loopholes into it to help their campaigns. If you're going to put political jabs into news posts, please do a little research first. :)

Re:Bush and Kerry didn't *write* the thing!

[DAldredge]

They fucking voted for it or signed it. It doesn't matter that they didn't write it their actions show they agree with it.

Slightly OT mini-rant

[bersl2]

Don't like any of the presidential candidates? Here's an idea: don't vote (as in do abstain)!

If they're not going to put a good enough candidate on the ballot, don't vote for the Big Two, unless you really wanted to.

Abstension is just as much a part of the democratic process as is casting a vote, but this has been lost to America because of some two-party system in which the having of actual viewpoints has been replaced with such generality that what our parties actually stand for is mixed up and buried in misused jargon.

So join me. I'm going to register to vote. I will vote on all state, parish (county), and municipal issues. But I would... do something really really bad... before I would vote for either the Republican or Democratic candidate for president!

Re:Slightly OT mini-rant

[patternjuggler]

Great, you've rationalized your inability to make hard choices.

Abstension is just as much a part of the democratic process as is casting a vote

There isn't any penalty specified in the constitution if voter turnout is low- 10% percent turnout doesn't make the winner 10% president. Therefore, the only result you and people like you not not voting is that no major party will care about things you and people like you care about.

The thing is, in a free country there's bound to be a huge diversity of incompatible world views- the chance that you and a candidate or party agree 100% is pretty low. Refusing to choose is just a cop-out.

If the incumbent is a corrupt incompetent moron who can't string two unrehearsed sentences together, and the other candidate may be no better, what do you do? Kick the incumbent out- at least the guy coming in will be a little more humble and thoughtful about whether they're doing the right thing if they know the public will judge them harshly.

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

I can't imagine the Supreme Court upholding a law that restricts people's right to political expression, the heart of what the framers intenced to protect, based on the reasoning that people find deleting the messages annoying.

I agree completely. This is totally analogous to the decisions wherein the Court said that political activists can come uninvited into my home and staple campaign posters to all my walls...
Oh, wait...

Blacklisting

[bobthemuse]

What happens when major providers start blacklisting their servers? Will they a) give up, b) resort to the same underhanded server-hopping techniques as the rest of the spammers or c) find a way to make blacklists illegal.

If they have the right to spam me, I reserve the right to spam them back. On to the game of 'how many religion and porn lists can I sign up their staff for?

Hint: it's scripted :-)

Whoever sends me election spam....

[Rick Zeman]

...will get reported to Spamcop and then badmouthed "Yeah, KerBush said he could make my dick bigger..."
Seriously, they have the law on their side, but morally they're no different than any other spammer.

proportions ;-)

[Scrameustache]

Leave it to slashdot to have people completely overreact and blow things out of proportion.

WHAT!? I will do NO SUCH THING!

I will overreact AND blow things WAY out of proportion whenver I please!
I won't let a facist like YOu dictate how I am allowed to react! That is the absolute worst thing I have ever heard! You sir are a monster! I'm adding you to my enemies list and I urge all slashdotters to do the same! You won't get away with such OUTRAGEOUS controlling statements!
Our ancestors died to protect us from people like you, you MONSTER!

HOW DARE YOU?!?!?!?!!!!

hey joe! FREE pr ES agura?

[MattyCobb]

I can see it now: "Need a better preSIdeNTT!>???!? Our pills make your president 25% better in as litte as 3 months*. CLICK EHRE! GET FREEEEE congress reports**!!!!!! ANDD make MONEYY at home offff CONGRESS-BAY!" *never ** porn" I for one welcome it though. At least it will be spam that won't refer to my special member, the rack i don't have, or a cable descrambler. That and I imagine any spam GW sends out will fill my heart with laughter.

I don't think that will help

[roystgnr]

If enough of us do what you suggest, we won't receive any more spam from candidates advertising themselves. After all, a commercial spammer who pisses off only 99 people for every purchase would be a roaring success, but a political spammer who pisses off 4 people for every new convert would be a horrible failure, since 1 or 2 of those 4 people probably vote and will now vote against him.

This won't do anything to stop negative spam, though. If you get an email talking about what an idiot Kerry is, does that make you want to vote against Edwards, Dean, or Bush?

What's worse, if people like you are vocal enough and numerous enough, you'll just start to see a new type of spam: obnoxious emails purporting to support Candidate X, but actually sent by one of his competitors.

You can try and strike a balance in which your reduced support for the candidate in an unsolicited email exactly balances out the increased support he might get from others, but that just sounds hard. I suggest treating political spam like any other variety: filter it, ignore it, or delete it.

NOW it makes sense!!!

[SmoothTom]

Now we can fully understand why the new federal CanSPAM law overrides existing state laws that alowed individuals to sue spammers for spam (often at about $500 per received spam).

The politicians built in not only a specific exemption for their own SPAM, but at the same time took away from the victims the ability to sue on their own.

--
"Very funny, Scotty, now beam down my clothes."

Referrer spamming

[fatwreckfan]

Disturbing as this is, a friend that has a blog has been getting referrer spam to candidates' webpages of all things.

If you're unfamiliar with the term, referrer spamming is when fake HTTP Referrer headers are used to make referrers show up in webserver logs so the webmasters think they are linked to by that site.

He was getting only porn spamming up until about a month ago, when the presidental candidate pages started showing up.

Re:Referrer spamming

[kris]

The aim here is not to make the webmaster think that they are linked by that site, but to boost page rank.

Referer stats are often part of stats pages that are made available under the original URL of your site. For example, if your domain is http://example.com/, your stats may be made available to you from http://stats.example.com by your hoster. The hope is that your stats are available without password protection and are found by Google.

By showing up in your referer stats, the spammers are essentially creating a link from your stats domain to their site, boosting their general google page rank tremendously.

Sending death threats as reply is a bad idea here

[EvilLiberalGuy]

People who react to this spam with profanity laced rants and/or death threats can now be jailed in federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison for threatning the President or a presidential candidate. Good way to stop the opposition.

better spam than mass-mailings

[TheGuinnesseur]

Would they be more likely to get your vote if they sent you a piece of cardstock in the mail with some witty slogans and a pretty photo?

I think email campaign ads are a great idea from an environmental perspective. Imagine if your candidate of choice could say that he had saved 10,000 more trees than Pres. Bush--and all because of email. While I hate spam as much as the next guy, a nice, polite email from a candidate sent from a valid address would be great. I'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who spammed me (and let's be honest, this isn't really spam) than one who wasted paper on mass-mailings.

Email costs significantly less than physical mailings and is a heck of a lot easier on the environment. Seriously? Would you *rather* get a piece of card stock over an email? As an added plus, maybe this could even out unbalanced campaign contributions?

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[Anonymous Coward]

If I want to hear it, I'll go to their website. Saves the trees, and keeps my inbox clear.

They're profitting by this e-mail (paid if elected), so it's spam.

So fuck um both. I hope someone brings a class action lawsuit against them if they do this horse-shit.

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[TheGuinnesseur]

1. They're profitting by this e-mail (paid if elected), so it's spam.

Let's get real. People don't run for president because of the salary and benefit package. They do it for power. Now, in an ideal world the Presidency would be a selfless job (I'd still like to believe it is), but it's not about "paid if elected."

If you're idealistic, it's about upholding the Constitution and enforcing laws enacted by Congress. If you're cynical, it's about cronyism, nepotism and using the people of the United States for fun and profit. Whatever way you slice it, it's not about the $250K salary.

Re:better spam than mass-mailings

[gnu-generation-one]

"If I want to hear it, I'll go to their website. Saves the trees, and keeps my inbox clear."

Or go to their blog. I mean, all serious candidates have blogs, right?

in a way I am happy

[beforewisdom]

I'm not excited about spam, but politics by email seems like it is leveling the playing field a bit.

Someone who isn't a rich, "preapproved" canidate can stand toe-to-toe in emails.....well, at least come closer to it.

Steve

But it does

[bluGill]

The most effective way to affect politics is run yourself and win. Next is to go to the caucuses of one major party and get some resolutions passed, and then work to get your canidate elected. However you can't run for all positions, or might not be elected, your next option isn't of much use if the rest of the party members shoot it down. So you have one more options: third party votes.

Voting for a third party gets noticed, perhaps out of proprotion. These are people who took the time to vote and were informed on the issues. Those who vote because they should: vote party lines because "dad was a democrat so I'm a democrat and I don't care if the party has changed"; "I'm a republican, and it is better to help a party that agrees with me partially than throw away my vote". Note that these are two groups that you don't have to worry about, they will vote for you, and make up a large part of the voters. Polititions have to worry about those who can be persuaded. Many voted for Kennedy because Nixon sweated on TV, not for serious reasons, so you don't have to worry about serious issues to get a nother group. Who is left? A very small group that you have to influence, because they

Of course polititions are also aware some people will always vote libratarian. (or whatever) However they care about those who might vote for them, if they were just a little more "left" or a little more "right". The only thing stopping them is there are those in a the middle who also will change votes, so it is a balance, get as many fringe votes as you can without scaring away the middle voters.

They may not act like it, but polititions always care about third parties, because their job is to get re-elected. And therefore you vote counts. If you can get a lot of others to vote with you your vote counts even more. (actually if you can get a lot of people to vote one way you have more power than even the richest man in the world)

Re:Since when was the First Amendment a "loop hole

[Idarubicin]

If you're so pissed off that Internet email allows unsolicited messages to be delivered to you then you can choose to not participate. If, on the other hand, you choose to participate in a messaging system that you know permits -- at the protocol level -- unsolicited messages, well, you've got to accept the fact that you might get a few of those messages.

I should know better than to reply to an anonymous coward, but here we go.

If you would like a direct analogy that is exactly on point, here it is: laws already exist banning junk faxes. These laws have gotten the thumbs-up from courts, despite advertisers trying to raise First Amendment questions.

The receiver of the message necessarily bears some of the cost of the message--toner, paper, temporary loss of use of the line for fax machines; connection and bandwidth charges for spam.

The First Amendment rights of others end when they start charging me (directly or otherwise) so they can express themselves. The First Amendment guarantees one the right to speak--it doesn't guarantee that I will pay to listen.

What I wouldn't object to

[lkaos]

I certainly wouldn't object to receiving one email from each candidate stating their stances on important issues and why I should vote for them.

This email should contain embedded flash or any of that nonsense. Basically, it's like a candidate coming to your door. As long as they are respectful, polite, and only do it once, I see no real problem with it.

Re:What I wouldn't object to

[iso]

Well I wouldn't want even *one* email, as I don't care about their election and I can't vote anyhow: I'm a Canadian living in Canada. How will these candidates ensure that they will be sending their "one" email only to American voters and not the rest of the world?

Oh well.

[Viqsi]

Not exactly a new experience for me. The Joe Liberman campaign was spamming me at work for months, until he finally gave up on getting nominated. Rather pissed me off.

(Of course, I do work for my Jewish synagogue, but frankly none of us there were about to vote for the guy anyways.)

Who is 'Them'?

[Mateorabi]

From the article, it sounds like they are only sending out to party loyalists / people already on distribution lists in order to create a 'buzz'. So you probably won't get one directly but it will be forwarded from a 'friend'.

It'll probably even say something allong the lines of "Forward this to 10 friends or you'll be cursed with 4 years of bad govornment."

They're sending me WHAT?

[Crypto Gnome]

After all the years we've spent bitching and moaning about SPAM sucking up the last vestiges of space in our inbox - these presidential candidates think they're going to win votes by emailing out a VIDEO attachment?

"The format is a Web video message e-mailed to millions of the Democratic and Republican rank-and-file."

You have GOT to be kidding me!

You have to wonder WHY are they DOING THIS?

"And unlike those TV ads, the videos that appear on the Internet face none of the content regulations of the 2002 campaign finance law"

No surprises here: Politicians find new ways in which The LAW does not apply to them. Details at 11.

it's the system

[Anonymous Coward]

In my country I can vote for whom I will because the voting if preferential, and I can decide who gets my vote next if my first preference doesn't get it.

But in a non-preferential system such as you have in america you can be damned sure that I would vote for Kerry even though I don't totally agree with him.

The funny thing is Democrats would win every American presidential election under the sun if you had a preferential system, because the TWO MILLION Ralph Nader voters (he might get more under a preferential system) would put him on their first preference and then the democrat candidate next. The democrats already get more RAW VOTES than the republicans, but adding a 2% or more across the board in every state (500 nader voters in florida perhaps?) would send the republicans out of office.

But then there is the "progressive alliance" who would flow to republicans, and I don't know much about the natural law or that christian group - but all of the others barely add up to 1% if I recall only half or less than half of Naders votes. Sad I know more about america's politics than most of it's citizens do....

Perhaps Nader should make a deal with the democrats....step down for one election in return for a constitutional referendum to reform the presidential voting process at which point he can run again in the new system and will get more votes due to people not feeling they are "wasting" their vote.

bah, sad times we live in.

Re:got emails last year

[rock_climbing_guy]

I heard a funny story. They said that there was a campaign manager who called people, purporting to be doing a pre-election survey. If the person said that they planned to vote for his candidate, he would say something along the lines of, "Well thanks for your input. Be sure to get out and vote tomorrow."

Otherwise, he would say, "Well thanks for your input. Be sure to get out and vote day after tomorrow!"

The cost of spam...

[sheapshearer]

A little math here, assuming people spend an average of 10s (1/360 hour) looking at one spam message.

(Yes, the average /. reader spends less than 1s, but not everyone is that fast).

Further assume that the average computer uses 200w (0.2kw) on average. (Probably less, but probably much more when you figure in all the routers, servers, etc that it traveled through).

1 Million Spam Messages / ( 0.2/360 ) = 555 kW*h per Spam

Doesn't seem like much, but keep in mind that is 2 YEARS of electricity (with copious use of A/C and electric heater) for my U.S. located home.

If there are ~200 Million voters, then sending 1 campaign message to each of them would burn enough fossil fuels to power my entire high school graduating class's homes for 3 YEARS...

And who is to say that only one candidate will send one message?

Unfortunately slashdot is even worse. The time I have spent reading articles.... Well, better not go there...

the lesser of two evils

[betsywetsy]

You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

Lieberman is conservative, not liberal.

Sharpton is a very charming and acute speaker, but he's a GOP shill! Let me repeat: Sharpton is a GOP shill.

Kucinich is the most liberal remaining candidate, and the only one who's too liberal to get elected, because of his tax policy and because of his single-payer health policy - something even Clinton could not get support for, something Dean initially tried in Vermont and couldn't get through.

Electability is a false issue in the primaries.
Primary voting strategy should focus on the immediate goal: the convention.
The guy who shows up there with the most delegates is by definition electable, even if everybody voted their conscience.

Vote to either get your guy nominated, or to get him influence defining the platform, or to stop someone else, but vote for the convention, not November. November is far away, we know little about the candidates, and we don't know what Bush will do in the meantime.

Now, voting for the convention may not always mean voting your conscience. I think a lot of people's conscience leads them away from the current frontrunner, but they're fractured into separate camps. I know Kucinich voters are fighting for delegates, but I wish they'd consider whether they have a preference between the three more mainstream candidates who are still running.

And the Dean and Edwards camps need to take a good long look at each other and ask themselves what the heck they're doing. They're splitting an anti-Kerry vote, and I don't think either will cede it to the other because they're too different and too determined.

Vote Cthulhu in '04

[Entropy Unleashed]

This is exactly the reason why you should vote for Cthulhu on November 2. Why settle for a lesser evil?

Keeping it US only???

[advocate_one]

I just hope they've gone over their lists with a nit comb to remove all non-US email addresses... cos I for one do NOT want to receive any...

Re: Very OT mini-rant

[quintessencesluglord]

Would you rather be fucked in the ass or ass-fucked?

I'm pleased you've rationalized your ability to make the tough decisions when someone else has presumed what your choices are allowed to be.

It would seem no major party does care about the same things I do, hence the desire to ignore them completely (I forget, which party is for heavily restricting the DMCA again? Oh.). Voting for either would only validate the fact that neither is much different from the other. It's just a question of which political favors will be returned this time. It has nothing to do with me.

The thing is, it isn't a free country when I'm forced into voting for vanilla over chocolate or not having any ice scream at all. What about mocha-ripple? What about daiquiri ice? And in this grand wide world of incompatible views, it is doubtful two party system would be able to encompass even a portion of those views except for those who support a two party system and those who do not. And those who don't are very much the majority. In that respect, hoping the challenger won't wear the super-sized strap-on that the incumbent does isn't "the ability to make a tough decision"; it's political suicide.

Truth is both parties would be terribly afraid of a "none of the above" option. It would call bullshit on the entire operation, and then those bribes aren't quite as effective anymore.

Your vote vs. billions of dollars and the media framing all of the issues for you. Either way, you lose.

They Automatically provide the filter information

[rodney dill]

Filter anything containing the candidate names and party names

Just wait until...

[CrimsonTemplar]

...someone decides to spoof one (or both) of the candidates email addresses and begins sending out viruses. I'm sure that'll be a boon for their campaigns.