Slashdot Mirror
Judge: School's Facebook Post is a Campaign Contribution (coloradoan.com)
schwit1 writes: A Colorado judge has ruled that a Facebook post by Liberty Common School amounts to an illegal campaign contribution to a Thompson School District board candidate. In August, the Fort Collins charter school shared with its Facebook followers a newspaper article about a parent of a student running for a board seat in the neighboring school district. Liberty Common's principal, former Colorado Congressman Bob Schaffer, then shared the post and called candidate Tomi Grundvig an "excellent education leader" who would provide "sensible stewardship" of Thompson.
The campaign manager for Grundvig's rival filed a complaint, and it had to be settled by the courts. Administrative law judge Matthew E. Norwood called the violation "minor," and ruled that "no government money of any significant amount was spent to make the contribution." He also focused on the post to the school's specific page, not Schaffer's personal page. "The school's action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity," Norwood wrote.
The campaign manager for Grundvig's rival filed a complaint, and it had to be settled by the courts. Administrative law judge Matthew E. Norwood called the violation "minor," and ruled that "no government money of any significant amount was spent to make the contribution." He also focused on the post to the school's specific page, not Schaffer's personal page. "The school's action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity," Norwood wrote.
So when everyone in the US posts for or against a US presidential candidate every single one of the posts is a campaign contribution under this ruling. It will not matter if the post is positive or negative or if it is to one person in an email or to your family or to the world. This Judge has ruled that an online comment is considered a contribution to a campaign.
So much for free speech. It now all has value and that value has been weighed.
I would think that using an official government organization Facebook page to promote a candidate would be a minor violation but a violation none the less.
I wonder if this ruling would equally apply if the same piece of information was shared by word of mouth through the 'grapevine'. That's technically also a 'thing of value' if it sets off a wildfire of gossip.
And what is the threshold for 'value'? If someone gives their old newspaper clipping to someone else and says, "please pass this on when you're finished". Is that also sufficiently 'of value'?
I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. It is a legitimate concern in how to measure 'campaign contributions', and where the threshold falls where the guarantee of freedom of speech for one person crosses over with the ability to 'pay' for additional 'speech'.
If some famous person endorsing a presidential candidate has value then so to does you recommending a movie to a friend. There is no threshold for value only scale. Every positive or negative valuation exchanged would then have value theoretically creating taxable events.
"Nice car" -> you just increased the value of his car.
"Your lawn needs mowing" -> decreased the value of the house.
"You look good today." -> contributed to their self worth. Equivalent to time with a therapist.
Speech must always remain free. And not a value transfer.
Meanwhile in the real world, Koch Brothers are set to spend $889 million to secure elections for their choice of candidates:
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-koch-brothers-political-network-planning-889-million-of-spending-in-2016-2015-1?op=1
And this is the same Brothers who require their employees attend Political camps and hits them with endless letters warning of layoffs if their opposition candidate is elected.
"Citizens United", the ruling that defined corporations as people with the same free speech rights. Yet a school isn't a person, even if its a corporation?
Is saying "Fred would make a good Principle" the same as "Vote for Fred over Bob"? It doesn't even make the claim he's the best candidate, or even just a better candidate than the other guy!
Bob Schaffer, is part of the criminal GOP pack that runs around in Larimer and Weld County. Schaffer and his ilk were always fairly shady.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Additionally Bob was not very good in Congress and was even tied to the Jack Abramoff corruption scandals; so I am not too sure how much his endorsement is worth anyway these days. The other big take away is that he is endorsing a parent who, by being a parent at his school, does not send their kids to the very district they are running to be on the board. . I know if I already decided to not use the services in my district for my kids, I would not go out of my way to be in charge of what happens to other people's kids.
Notice that the judge only had a broblem with the post on the school page.
Schaffer posted on behalf of the school, a government entity, a link to an article about a political candidate. The post was non-partisan, and factual and probably would not be an issue. He then shared that post in a completely partisan manner where he endorsed the candidate. Because he shared the post there is a link from the government post to the endorsement. Had he just created a new post on his page rather than sharing the original post there would be not problem. Schaffer knew what he was doing. Schaffer is a pretty smart man but not smart enough.
I think you missed the main point. The problem is a government entity, the school, endorsing a candidate. The same person who made the school post shared that post along with an endorsement. Every time anyone sees the school post they will also see the endorsement. He could have placed a separate post on his page and there would be no problem. Endorsements are very valuable. A government agency is not allowed to contribute anything to a political campaign.
where the threshold falls where the guarantee of freedom of speech for one person crosses
Government entities do not have free speech.
Citizens United made a movie. People seem to want that to be called a campaign contribution and regulated or prohibited or punished. How is a movie different than a Facebook post?
Perhaps we should all just agree to some law or something to protect free expression?
> So speech is money and money is speech now? How is this at all consistent with free speech?
You either didn't read the summary or are too stupid to understand a very reasonable ruling. You're part of the stupid people problem, either way.
The school's action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity," Norwood wrote. click
well yeah if say the principal of the school held a speech to the students promoting said candidate.. you get it or not?
using the school funds to fund billboards would have been pretty blatant, but essentially the same thing happened. but since it didn't cost the school money it was just minor.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
A "campaign manager" for school district boardmember .. so typical US but still, consider me flabbergasted. I never knew school was that political a thing, that such campaigns even existed.
A poster would be a better analogy. There's a difference between putting up a poster endorsing a candidate in your front garden and on the front of the school. I on case, it's simply the individual endorsing the candidate, in the other it's implicitly the school's endorsement. I'd say that canvasing would count the same way. I wouldn't have a problem with the principle, off school property, talking to voters and asking them to support the candidate of his choice. I would, if he did so wearing a badge saying 'Principle of Liberty Common School', or if his endorsements started with 'Well, as Principle of Liberty Common School, I think that...' He can endorse whoever he wants, but he can't use his position as an appeal to authority when he does so and he can't do it using school resources.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I wonder if this ruling would equally apply if the same piece of information was shared by word of mouth through the 'grapevine'.
If the "word of mouth" was over the school's PA system, then it probably would apply. If the "word of mouth" is the principal talking to a bunch of people at a party at his friend's house, then probably not.
this is charter/scam school correct? the name sounds like it. whoever supports charter schools is engaging in treason.
You can bet in the socialist state of Colorado, had a democrat, done the exact same thing it would be ruled the other way. What a joke! Someone posting a FB, twitter, instagram or whatever, is "considered" a campaign contribution? Welcome to the USSA, sit down, shut up and do what we tell you to do, OR ELSE!
I would, if he did so wearing a badge saying 'Principle of Liberty Common School', or if his endorsements started with 'Well, as Principle of Liberty Common School, I think that...' He can endorse whoever he wants, but he can't use his position as an appeal to authority when he does so and he can't do it using school resources.
In principle I agree with what you said, but wouldn't a badge saying principal be better?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ugh. I obviously need more sleep / coffee today.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Everyone knows that votes must be bought fairly and squarely. None of this recommendation of good character for free stuff.
I think you missed the main point. The problem is a government entity, the school, endorsing a candidate.
A public school would be a government entity. A charter school may be a private entity, depending on the state. In Colorado, it is publicly funded, but it is an entity founded and operated privately. Whether a charter school's endorsement of a candidate constitutes a government endorsement is highly debatable. My opinion is that it does not.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Why is this news for nerds, because it started with a FB post?
Just another day in Paradise
A school thet is 90% funded publicly and uses both US and Colorado flag on their home page is acting like a government entity.
Here is their description of a Charter School;
A charter school is a public school operating within a public school district. A contract with the local board of education allows a charter school to operate free from specified district policies and state regulations thereby allowing more flexible and innovative ways of educating children.
A " public school operating within a public school district" funded by the government sounds pretty much like a government entity to me.
This is not a teacher union issue. It's the definition of campaign finance reform. Whoops - here's an unintended consequence of having such moronic laws.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Citizens United determined that money is speech. Therefore, speech must also be money. That seems rather straightforward to me in a time where ideas and terminology are so malleable that they can be made to mean anything by the parties in power.
Except unions have the right to endorse and support political candidates, and government bodies (in this case a school) do not. This would be like if your municipality's treasury department endorsed a candidate.
Rawr
A school thet is 90% funded publicly and uses both US and Colorado flag on their home page is acting like a government entity.
The flags are irrelevant. Anyone can put a flag on their webpage without becoming an agent of the government that flag represents. The MONEY and the LAWS are the relevant parts.
What's wrong with that if they're supporting the right candidate?
They are funded by the government and are under contract to the government. How much more government do they have to be?
I wrote that the flags on a webpage are not relevant, only the money is. What in that statement makes you think I'm saying they are not a government facility?
This thread is about whether or not the school is a government entity. Since you all you did was contest my argument I assumed you has the same opinion as the other person I was talking with. How about you state your opinion at to whether or not the school is a government entity.
This thread is about whether or not the school is a government entity.
I know what this thread is about.
Since you all you did was contest my argument ...
Your "argument" was that a school that does A and B is a government entity. I told you that B was not relevant, but A was. (This is now the THIRD time I have told you that, and yet you still don't get it.) The "and B" part of your argument is a waste of time and a red herring. That's not "contesting your argument", it's correcting it to be more concise and correct. Notice that I disputed nothing about your A condition or the conclusion it leads to.
... I assumed ...
Yeah.
How about you state your opinion at to whether or not the school is a government entity.
If you cannot figure it out from what I have written, further elucidation would be pointless.
Good job living up to your user name. I should have looked at that first before replying. Why should I have to figure it out your position when you could just as easily state it? Just because something is relevant does not mean you interpret it the same way I do.