MA GOP launches unfounded attack on League of Women Voters

As posted by massgop at RedMassGroup, the Massachusetts Republican Party has decided to attack the League of Women Voters instead of defending Scott Brown’s votes. If you click the link, you can see their video. I have copied the letter that Chairwoman Jenn Nassour sent to the president of the LWV. Emphasis mine.

Marcia Hirshberg, President
The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts
133 Portland Street
Boston, MA 02114 Dear Ms. Marcia Hirshberg,

In the 2010 election cycle, I heard anecdotes from the campaign trail about League of Women Voters-sponsored debates that Republican candidates felt were less than fair to them. I urged candidates to register their complaints with the local chapters and felt confident that the LVW, as a whole, could be trusted to organize and run fair and impartial debates.

Sadly, my confidence has been shaken by the recent actions of the League of Women Voters and its refusal to disclose the donors of its misleading smear campaign against U.S. Senator Scott Brown. Furthermore, I am concerned about the lack of political balance on the state chapter’s board of directors, whose members have donated 250 times more to Democrats than Republicans since 2003. Other organizations that claim to be non-partisan typically take care to have an even mix of political viewpoints in leadership.

These revelations lead me to write to you today and strongly urge the LVW state leadership to issue guidelines for the proper conduct of candidate debates in the 2012 election cycle and beyond. I would suggest the LWV work with both the Republican and Democratic parties in Massachusetts to draft rules for your local chapters to follow when conducting debates. In particular, I would suggest LWV debate moderators be properly schooled in moderating and understand that discussing an incumbent’s voting record does not constitute a personal attack. In addition, I would suggest a prohibition against a debate organizer being a political contributor to one of the candidates.

While I am strongly disappointed by the direction taken by the LWV on a national level, I do see the benefit to our democracy of the LWV continuing to sponsor local debates, as long as they are conducted in a non-partisan and balanced manner. If the LWV declines my request or fails to implement serious reforms in its debate protocols, I will then be faced with the unfortunate question of whether to advise Republican candidates to decline requests to LWV debates and to organize alternative forums for the public to hear their viewpoints.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. The MassGOP’s Executive Director Nate Little and Political Director Anthony Ferrucci are available to you and your organization for further discussion. They can be reached at (617) 523-5005.

Sincerely,

Jennifer A. Nassour Esq.

OK – So first off, Nassour throws the bomb that the 2010 LWV debates were unfair. I attended three LWV-sponsored debates in the 10th Congressional district in 2010. The debates at Weymouth High School, Plymouth Town Hall, and Cape Cod Community College all seemed fair to me. In Plymouth the crowd became very vocal and was heckling the Democratic candidate, but the Leauge didn’t stop them – does that mean they weren’t impartial? On the Cape, the League promised to kick anyone out who made too much noise. Seemed fair. At all of the events, they made sure no one had on political stickers, buttons, or tee-shirts. The questions were fair and focused on local and national issues. Jeff Perry was not once asked a question about his past, which really tells me it was impartial. So, Jenn, do us all a favor – instead of attacking every single LWV chapter in Massachusetts with your recollection of hearing “anecdotes”, why don’t you give us some names? Which candidates felt that their debates were unfair? Why? Where? Which chapter? Did they file complaints? Why did you wait six plus months later to mention it?

more after the flip

Next, Nassour notes that LWV board members have donated 250 more times to Democrats than Republicans since 2003. That’s a convenient little fact to dig up, until you think about it. Last time I checked, it’s not the number of donations, it’s the value of donations that matter. What did that number come out to? How many donations were there in total? Remember, fifty $10 donations is the equivalent of one $500 donation. So Jenn, How many donations did the Leauge of Women Voter’s board members make in total to each party? How much in total to each party?

Now Jenn begins the MA GOP (a partisan organization) takeover of the LWV by laying out her demands:

• Sit down with MA GOP and MA Dems to draft debate rules – Why would they do that? They’re non-partisan, and were the only debates in MA-10 that invited the independent candidates. MA GOP/DEM involvement will only hurt their non-partisan status and possibly disenfranchise independent candidates.
• Moderators must be schooled in moderating– OK – Who wasn’t? The three moderators I saw did so efficiently and without favoring any candidate.
• Moderators must understand that bringing up a voting record is not a personal attack – OK – so where did that happen?
• Phrohibition against debate organizer being a donor – That makes sense – where did it happen? Are you sure that the LWV rules don’t already prevent that?

So now that her demands are laid out, she gives her ultimatum:

If the LWV declines my request or fails to implement serious reforms in its debate protocols, I will then be faced with the unfortunate question of whether to advise Republican candidates to decline requests to LWV debates and to organize alternative forums for the public to hear their viewpoints.

Nassour says that if the non-partisan LWV doesn’t comply with her partisan organizations requests, MA GOP candidates will not participate in LWV debates, but instead organize their own forums. Wow.

Now it all makes sense. Scott Brown voted against provisions for clean air, the LWV continues their clean air crusade and attacks Scott Brown, and the opportunistic MA GOP sees it as a chance to attack the LWV, get rid of non-partisan debates, and justify setting up their own MA GOP sponsored debates. Awesome. A definite win for Democracy.

Please share widely!

0

0