As you probably know, the League of Conservation voters has put out an ad against Scott Brown arguing that he has a lousy environmental record. Well, he does. Anyway, you can see the ad here, if you haven’t already.
What’s really peculiar is the Brown campaign’s response to it. They’ve assembled their own little video, but here’s the really odd thing: the use of a “constituent letter” from Brown to some unnamed constituent – a letter presumably sent in Brown’s official (i.e., taxpayer-funded) capacity. (Click for larger image.)
OK, a couple of things here. First, is a letter from Brown’s Senate office to an unnamed constituent – a letter that, as far as is evident, has never been made public, except for this excerpt on his campaign site – really a “fact” than can legitimately be used to rebut an ad that is based on his recorded votes? Isn’t that kind of like saying, “never mind what you saw me do in public, here’s something that I once whispered to someone in private”?
Second, is it legal to use a letter that apparently was written by and sent from Brown’s taxpayer-funded Senate office as fodder for his campaign site? I don’t know the answer to that, but it does seem to smack of improperly commingling public and campaign resources.
Overall, a very peculiar episode. Perhaps a summer intern did it.
What is the difference between sending out a letter to one person explaining his position, and putting the same letter in an ad to explain his position to lots of people at once? Isn’t that better? And wouldn’t it be weird if he were to write one position statement for his ads and different ones for his constituents?
Isn’t that straight out of the Kennedy playbook, of using his office to campaign?
Sorry, I hit preview and everything, but didn’t notice I left out some essential constituents of the word “constituents.”
The letter Senator Brown sent his constituent was paid for with public funds. Senator Brown — not the recipient — then used that letter in his own campaign. In the case you cited, Senator Kerry did not publish either letter in a campaign ad.
The difference is using an asset (in this case a constituent letter) paid for with public funds in a re-election campaign ad. Senator Brown did that; Senator Kerry did not.
You guys are crazy. First of all, as Kerry’s letters show, “constituent letters” are themselves campaign ads, especially if they are tailored to please each recipient, as Kerry’s were. Does he still do that, I wonder? Did he ever tell his staff to stop using constituent letters to butter up voters? The good thing about showing us a constituent letter on his campaign site is that we get to know for the record how he responds to people regarding his position on tax breaks for oil companies. It’s ridiculous to prefer that he come up with different words.
the FACT part is quoting from a letter he wrote once. How is that FACT? What did he specifically do?
FICTION is an actual vote AKA FACT.
What kind of bizzaro world do these people live in.
FOIA it. Hell, BMG should just do it. Should be easy enough, no?
Congress is exempt from FOIA, as they are from workplace safety laws like OSHA. At one time I know they were also not covered by sexual harassment and discrimination laws as well, but I think may have been change in the wake of some scandal or another- though I could be wrong and they’re still not covered. They like to leave themselves out of potentially troublesome things like freedom of information if at all possible.
What would be the point? Do you think Scott Brown added yet another layer of weirdness to this by putting something on the web site claiming to be a constituent letter when it actually wasn’t? I assume it was an actual constituent letter.
I recently received a fundraising letter from him. I have reason to believe that he got my name and address from his constituent mail list. If he merged that data over to his campaign, that is illegal.