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.
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'.
So much for free speech. It now all has value and that value has been weighed.
Yep, this is a path to censorship. But the bright side is now we can charge for every word we say.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The court seems to be saying that there's no problem with Bob Schaffer's personal speech, so it doesn't seem like a free-speech problem to me. The focus was on whether the school, a governmental entity, should in its official capacity make comments for or against a candidate. Governmental entities don't really have free-speech rights.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
"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."
No, because the personal opinions of individuals on their private facebook pages mean fuck all. It's only because the principal used the school's official facebook account to praise the candidate that this amounted to anything at all. And even then the guy's rival had to kick a shit up to have it even looked at.
If that same principal used his own personal facebook page to say the exact same thing then absolutely nothing would have happened - and if the rival still tried to push it into court at that point, the judge would have laughed him out of the courtroom.
Again, it is ONLY because the praise was spread via an official ORGANIZATIONS facebook page that anything (And it is considered minor by the judge) happened.
I don't think its too relevant for the average person since the publicity you're giving to the candidate is negligible. On the other hand celebrities and broadcasters / news agencies offer pretty significant publicity.
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.
No, he did this under the auspices of Thompson school. Had he done it on his own, it would have been fine. However, when you have a board that is currently GOP controlled and they allow for postings by a GOP for another GOP, that is campaign contribution.
BTW, normallly, Thompson is NOT controlled by the GOP. THis is an unusual situation. The kock brothers have spent BIG $ in Colorado targeting school boards here and are then running around trying to destroy the public schools.
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.
Don't worry AC. You've got Soros pumping in the same amounts of money all over the place.
Om, nomnomnom...
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?
Who exactly are you talking about? The guy who made the Facebook post is a Republican, the judge is a Democrat but his boss is a Republican, the candidate the guy supported is a Republican and her rival is a Democrat. Where exactly to the "neo-con" angle come in play in this situation?
lucm, indeed.
It's all the same money. Both sides are taking it from interest we don't make on our collective 401(k) and from raises we don't get because the economy.
So in the end it's really the people who pay for all this, we should rejoice! Justice prevails.
lucm, indeed.
"Citizens United", the ruling that defined corporations as people with the same free speech rights.
Citizens United did no such thing. The way the first amendment is written it says nothing about who freedom of speech applies to. It's written as a restriction on the federal government. Weather a Corporation is a person, citizen, or inadimate object the federal government is cannot restrict its speech.
Retards like you who think the first amendment shouldn't apply to corporations, I hope you enjoy a future where the government now controls what the media can say since freedom of the press won't apply anymore. Newspapers, television networks, Internet service providers, etc... Are all corporations.
The school's action was the giving of a thing of value to the candidate, namely favorable publicity," Norwood wrote. click
The focus was on whether the school, a governmental entity, should in its official capacity make comments for or against a candidate.
According to the article, this was a charter school, which is not a government entity. Charter schools are publicly funded, which may be the issue here, but they are most definitely not government entities. That's what distinguishes charter schools from public schools.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Charter schools are almost always legally considered governmental entities, just ones that are given a degree of organizational autonomy. Here is what this school's website says,
I.e. It's a public school that operates as part of a public school district.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
You don't actually understand the market or own any shares, do you? That's okay, lots of people don't. Truth be told, the people who own the shares are probably rooting for the CEO who is making campaign contributions that further their business agendas. I'm not sure why you think the shareholders would intrinsically mind such a thing or why you think that's an actual valid rebuttal or refutation.
I mean, if I were a greedy fuck (and I kind of am) then I'd want the person controlling the company to do everything he legally can to further the business. I own shares in a lot of companies. I'd really rather they were ethical but I don't own controlling stock in anything. I really don't think it's a good idea to suggest that I mind them doing what they can to make more money.
You don't think they donate to these candidates without repayment, in one form or another, do you? Heh... No, son, life doesn't work like that. Maybe it should but it doesn't. The idea that they're spending the shareholder's money (which obviously is not yours or you'd have thought this through more clearly - or maybe shouldn't be investing in the stock market on your own) isn't actually the problem. The problem is bigger than that and an entirely different subject.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I think we are all missing the Earth-shattering first-ever event here:
A judge in a court in the US has decided that something posted on Facebook, has value !
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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
What's the difference between a "personal" Facebook account and an "official" one? Fuck all.
The distinction between individual actions and the actions of "legal entities" is part of the foundation of Western law. It what makes it fraudulent for a sheriff to have the jail road gang do landscaping on his personal house or for a candidate to buy himself a boat with campaign funds. It's what keeps an individual county clerk from imposing her personal religious views on the entire county.
Publicly funded organizations may be composed of politically active individuals, but the organizations are supposed to be apolitical. In many places, politicians aren't even supposed to use their government phones for campaign calls. Citizens United does not apply to NASA, the EPA, the CIA, or the Fort Collins school district.
I mean, if I were a greedy fuck (and I kind of am) then I'd want the person controlling the company to do everything he legally can to further the business.
A CEO who will do legal-but-unethical things to benefit the business over society will probably also do legal but unethical things to benefit himself over the business or its shareholders.
This post says a lot more about you than Trepidity. He said something you wholly agree with, yet you still have to act out as an idiot. It's also one of the reasons I don't post as AC myself. Would you have posted such crap, if you knew a name, even a fake one, would be attached to it?
If that same principal used his own personal facebook page to say the exact same thing then absolutely nothing would have happened
If? According to the summary, the principal did post it to his personal Facebook page, and the judge explicitly said that doing so was fine.
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.
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
He did rule it a minor violation. Handslapped, don't do it again.
Congress has similar rules about not making campaign calls from their government desk phones.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I don't know about you but I want politicians to tell me what I can say about other politicians.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Ugh. I obviously need more sleep / coffee today.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The aclu disagrees with you. https://www.aclu.org/aclu-and-...
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
BTW, normallly, Thompson is NOT controlled by the GOP. THis is an unusual situation. The kock brothers have spent BIG $ in Colorado targeting school boards here and are then running around trying to destroy the public schools.
What a random, off topic post.
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
As I understand the Citizen's United decision, money is speech. You can't interfere with free speech, so you can't interfere with money in politics.
If money is speech, speech must be money, so political comments (or any other speech) has a $ value. I wonder how the IRS is going to deal with all my contributions to charities given in the form of speech...
Just my 2 cents worth....
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.
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.
Yep, this is a path to censorship.
Oh my God! How can we dare censor government offices and officials from using tax dollars to make political endorsements?
I think you will find that the First Amendment applies to the people, not to the government. There are long-standing and justifiable limits on what someone acting as a government official can say.
But the bright side is now we can charge for every word we say.
If someone asks you for a political endorsement, you have always been able to charge them for every word you say.
What's the difference between a "personal" Facebook account and an "official" one?
As far as Facebook is concerned, there is none.
As far as who posts to the page, a considerable one. Who is paying the individual to post to a personal Facebook page? Nobody. Who is paying the person who posts to a school's official Facebook page? The school.
This is no different than the difference between personal communications via ham radio (ok) and communications made for pay via ham radio (prohibitied).
Words only have the power we give them. The source is irrelevant.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Words only have the power we give them. The source is irrelevant.
What an amazingly utopian but completely unrealistic attitude, in the form of a meaningless sound-bite. Words do not have just the power "we" give them in reality, they have the power that other people give them, too. "Incitement to riot" is just a bunch of words. "We" may choose to give them no power ourselves, but when a large number of others accept their power, and they are used by someone who is well aware of the power that they will have using them, it becomes a crime and unacceptable.
On a perhaps more benign level, advertising has built an empire on the power of words to the masses. They become rallying cries for the political advertisers. Sometimes they're interesting sets of words, like "Bernie, because fuck this shit" (a campaign slogan currently in vogue.) If you don't believe that those words have power to some people, then you are naive.
The source becomes relevant when the source is being paid to say those words by people who do not agree with those words. Payment that is not voluntary, I might add.
I don't know your position on CU, and I don't care, but there are a lot of people who argue that it is unethical for corporations to use corporate money to make political speech. They claim that the money being used belongs to the shareholders who might not want that speech to happen. Well, as taxpayers, we are all involuntary shareholders in government, and when a government uses taxpayer money for political purposes the involuntary shareholders are footing the bill.
Government has no right to free speech. It is not censorship to limit the speech that government makes, because government speech is by default spoken from a position of authority. For all those who get it wrong by claiming that the people who form corporations give up their right to free speech, limiting government free speech should be an even higher priority because there is NO chance that a government was formed with the explicit purpose of making that speech, and NO chance that government will allow people to withhold from their taxes the amount that government spent on that speech.
"We" are "other people"... Speech is entirely ethereal, with no intrinsic force of any kind. We, the listener are its sole source of power. All choices are personal, regardless the motivation. Nobody has any right to regulate what can be said. CU was the right and proper decision. You have the power to turn your back. Do not blame other peoples' weakness and desires on the object of their desire. That is scapegoating to avoid the truth. Censorship is nothing but expediency to protect those with the power to impose it. Yes, I do agree, for empire maintenance, it is necessary, but it is no different than animal control. "Castrate" the idea so it can't spread its seed.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”