Open skulduggery in Senate race
October 25th, 2007 – 2:18 PM by Dennis J. McGrathA blog posting about Al Franken campaign appearances offers a peek into the spying that politicos routinely conduct on each other — completely above board.
This headline appears (as of this moment) on the Politically Connected page for Al Franken, where we draw in the latest news stories and blog postings about the candidate: “MN GOP “TRACKER” DENIED ADMISSION TO PUBLIC EVENTS OF AL FRANKEN.”
Al Franken |
The post is from Minnesota Democrats Exposed (MDE), and it said that the Republican operative who follows Al Franken around at public events has been “denied access to numerous public events where Al Franken is scheduled to appear.”
The post, by Michael Brodkorb, explains that this is a common practice by both parties. He links to a previous posting he did, noting that “J.D. from Franken’s campaign” attended and videotaped a recent Republican press conference critical of Franken.
The campaigns routinely send operatives — sometimes volunteers, sometimes paid staffers — to their opponent’s events. Videocam in hand, they capture every utterance — and every slip of the tongue — and the “highlights” are sure to show up in TV ads down the road.
The campaigns even get to know the tracker assigned to them.
Franken’s campaign refers to one GOP operative that followed the Democrat this summer as “Tracker Pete.” But Tracker Pete is now back at school in Duluth, said Franken spokesman Andy Barr.
“J.P. is the new guy,” Barr said.
“J.P. and some other people,” Republican Party spokesman Mark Drake added helpfully.
“This is the game, it’s politics. It happens on both sides of the aisle,” agreed Kelly Schwinghammer, the DFL Party communications director.
The GOP’s Drake, asked about the posting on MDE, cited three instances when the GOP tracker was turned away: A labor-union event in which Franken worked alongside a health care worker for a day; a luncheon; and an appearance before the Macalester College Democrats.
Drake acknowledged that the Franken campaign may not have directly organized and controlled all the events. But he said that Franken’s appearance at them was publicly advertised, including in at least one case on Franken’s website, giving it the imprint of a Franken campaign event. He said that if Franken’s campaign is committed to openness, it should have taken “one minute” in advance to “work with the organizers to allow admission to Republicans.”
Sen. Norm Coleman |
Barr said he’s not aware of a single time the Franken campaign has turned a tracker away from an event they had control over, and said that trackers are welcome at their events. He said that Drake was setting an “unreasonable standard” in expecting the Franken campaign to instruct organizers to admit trackers to events that Franken is simply invited to himself.
The DFL’s Schwinghammer said that their trackers have been turned away from a handful of events involving Sen. Norm Coleman, since they started tracking him in August.
The MDE posting drew an interesting comment from Jason, who wrote: “I was at a DFL event. A person, from the GOP I guess, was there with a video camera. This person was younger and seemed naive and inexperienced. She was asked nicely to leave and she did. She probably didn’t have to legally but she did anyway. Does this mean she was ‘denied’ access? Or was she simply too timid?”
Barr, from the Franken campaign, extened this courtsey to the GOP’s Drake. The luncheon event that the tracker was denied access to was videotaped, and the Franken website has a link to it on its home page.
“If Mark needs the link, I’ll be happy to send it to him.”
No need for that. Here it is.
What standards should apply to how campaigns handle trackers? Are there otherwise public events that they should be banned from?
6 Responses to "Open skulduggery in Senate race"
I can’t think of “an otherwise public event” that a tracker should be barred from. Unless the person is causing a disturbance, I can’t see any legitimate objection that any candidate would have to having their remarks recorded for the record.
Why would a candidate object to having his or her remarks recorded? It’s simple–because they’re afraid that their “controversial” remarks are going to end up on the record–and the candidate is most likely to make those controversial remarks in front a “friendly constituency” or a “constituency that the candidate is courting.” If that happens, the candidate loses “some control over his message”–in other words, the truth about what the candidate has said gets out.
Some candidates think that’s “a bad thing”; I’m convinced that’s a good thing. A candidate should be prepared to defend any statement he makes to particular audience; defend that to the public at large. If the candidate is not prepared to do that, then he shouldn’t make that statement.
So let them in, let them videotape, let the candidates know that what they say is for the record, not just for an inside audience. The thing that the “trackers” are doing is the very thing that the press is supposed to be doing–recording what the candidates say, and making a record of their controversial remarks so that voters can know about these.
The press *does* that, when the editor and the budget permits. The press “tracks” national candidates all the time, recording their remarks. What’s wrong with private citizens doing that, on their own time at their own expense? It’s not “skullduggery;” it’s recording the candidate’s remarks and positions in a public forum. What candidate positions could be so “secret” that their supporters would be justified in barring political opponents from recording them? Those are exactly the positions that the public *needs* to know.
I have trouble with a candidate or partisan activists who would prevent people from recording what they’re saying at a public gathering. There shouldn’t be one set of views you give “the insiders” and a different set of views for “outsiders.” The insiders and the outsiders are all voters; the candidate is accountable to all for what he or she says.
If they’re ashamed of some position and they don’t want to be held accountable for it–the solution is “not to say it.”
B. Pantywaist,
I don’t think the issue is that deep.
The tracker’s job is to get negative info on his ‘mark’, and certainly not to do them any favors. A candidate who tolerates a tracker does so entirely at his/her own expense.
Since I’m sure campaigns on all sides employ trackers, we’re simply witnessing a big pissing match here.
Ken Avidor and I were not allowed to video tape a 6th District CD meeting where Norm Coleman spoke - so this was something organized by the State Party.
Eva,
Get your facts correct. It’s not a party issue.
Eva’s simply describing something that happened to her and a friend, Robert. It happened; what are you gonna do, pretend it didn’t?
And I don’t know if Eva’s claim is true or not–though I’ve always found her a trustworthy person. But if Eva’s claim is true–that a *party* has a policy of banning people who want to videotape its candidates speaking to supporters–then it *is* a party issue.
Saw your post and just wanted to clarify…
I am co-chair of the Macalester Democrats, and we have had the good fortune of having Al on campus both last spring and this fall. I can say with certainty that GOP trackers were never blocked from attending either event. Thanks for the thought-provoking post.
Best,
Erin