Content provided in partnership with

Business Services Industry

Cameras in polling places, free media for candidates - Campaign Doctor

Campaigns & Elections, Dec, 2002 by Craig Varoga

Also: Passing out flyers in churches, Disputing lies

What are the rules on cameras in polling places?

Election judges can remove unauthorized people (with or without cameras) from polling places. In a few cases, election judges have overreacted by banning reporters from covering a candidate who is voting.

This year in Maryland, one election judge ordered reporters covering a gubernatorial candidate to leave the polling place -- and even threatened to call police if they did not comply.

Most Popular Articles in Reference: The importance of understanding organizational culture; Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students; What factors attract foreign direct investment?; Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...; How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques; More »

Problem was: Maryland regulations don't ban news cameras but, instead, require news organizations to "contact the chief election judge upon entering a polling place" and "set up their shots in such a way that they don't compromise voters' privacy." According to the Baltimore Sun, the rules also "prohibit reporters from conversing with voters in the polling place or taking a picture in such a way that would endanger the secrecy of the ballot."

Solution: Don't be disruptive, be nice (even to polling officials unfamiliar with large media entourages) and keep a copy of the election regulations nearby.

I read that local TV stations are now being much stricter about the content of political ads. Doesn't this violate the First Amendment?

Dozens of TV stations either canceled buys or worked with party organizations to alter the language in political ads. Why? Because the stations had been threatened with legal action if they didn't either pull or correct supposedly untrue commercials.

Background: Courts have ruled that candidates have the free-speech right to air ads pretty much regardless of how the ads register on the truth barometer. However, TV stations are not required to air ads by non-candidate groups. So when there's a complaint, station owners are free to cancel the ad to avoid even the possibility of legal complications. And in 2002, there were plenty of complaints. Republicans "moved aggressively" against Democratic ads portraying GOP candidates as either favoring privatization of Social Security or as weak on corporate responsibility, according to the New York Times. And Democrats "responded by attacking advertisements [that portrayed] Democrats as supporting tax hikes."

Campaign finance reform means new rules on soft money, independent expenditures and political advertising. Stay tuned for constitutional challenges on the very issue cited in your question.

I recently managed a downballot campaign in a small state. We narrowly lost the race and now the candidate blames us for not getting enough free press coverage. He says we should have been in the paper at least every other day. Is that realistic?

No. Downballot races, with few exceptions, do not get daily news coverage. Charlie King, an unsuccessful candidate for lt. governor in New York, complained tongue-in-cheek to reporters last summer: "Unless I set my hair on fire and run naked through the streets -- actually, we've tried that and you haven't covered it -- it's very difficult to be heard."

In most downballot races, go for name ID via billboards, bumper stickers, ads that repeat the candidate's name and visibility at high-profile events with large crowds. And choose one or two issues to use throughout the campaign (e.g., save tax dollars, improve public safety, clean up corruption, etc.).

What do you suggest if a news story contains a completely false allegation about your candidate?

Demand a retraction and keep on going.

Consider this nightmare: Three weeks before the Massachusetts primary, a candidate for state treasurer was pounded by news coverage that he had twice filed for bankruptcy. Not exactly on-message when you want to manage other people's money.

The story was not only a nightmare, it was false.

The candidate -- Tim Cahill -- immediately challenged the bankruptcy charges as untrue. "Not once, not twice, not ever," he explained. News organizations checked out his denial -- and verified his financial health.

Because of his quick actions, Cahill won both the primary and the general election -- even "surging to victory" in the three-way November face-off as one newspaper reporter put it.

In the last election, we encountered difficulty passing out flyers at local churches. I thought everyone distributed material this way. Is it legal or against the law?

Sounds like poor advance. Your staff should have cleared this lit distribution ahead of time and in person.

Because of their 501(c)3 tax status, religious institutions cannot endorse candidates. Some denominations are therefore loath to allow the distribution of political material in church-owned parking lots -- because electioneering could be seen as a violation of their tax status.

Next time, designate someone with existing church relationships to advance these events for you. Many congregations welcome candidates in the weeks leading up to Election Day -- so long as their tax status remains protected.

Craig Varoga is CEO of Varoga Rice & Shalett. Fax questions to 713-522-0040 or e-mail at cvaroga@varogarice.com.

Business Services Industry

Cameras in polling places, free media for candidates - Campaign Doctor

Campaigns & Elections, Dec, 2002 by Craig Varoga

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Reference

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference