Page 8
Perspectives
Kamala and Tim Want to Meet Me. Gosh.
By Roger M. Grace
“Kamala and Tim want to meet you. Yes, you, Roger.”
So reads the subject line on an email I received on Friday from “Harris-Walz HQ.” Perhaps you received the same email, with your first name on it.
Here’s the body of the email:
|
|
Well, I muffed it. I didn’t send in my donation by midnight. So, I won’t get to meet Kamala and Tim. Shucks.
But I’m wondering…if sending a campaign contribution meant buying a chance to win something, isn’t that a lottery? Illegal gambling?
★
I sent an email to a few folks with that query. A former candidate for public office responded:
As a veteran of four political campaigns (the nature of which would identify me) where I was the beneficiary of advice from campaign consultants, I do have an opinion. I naturally do not want to be identified as it no longer requires any imagination to contemplate the consequences of challenging the propriety of any act committed by the ‘Party,’—an immediate accusation of Racism, Gender Discrimination, and Spreading Misinformation will be swiftly followed by suspension of all social media accounts, a flood of hate mail, and worse of all, identification as a “MAGA Republican”—the political equivalent of a death sentence in California.
It was once said that the greatest feat the Devil pulled off was convincing the people that he did not exist (Sorry, I should say ‘convincing the people that ‘they’ do not exist, lest the Pronoun Police subpoena your records to identify me for persecution). By analogy, it can be said that the greatest feat the Democrat Party ever pulled of was convincing the people that they are democratic. But I digress.
While the offer of a reward to incentivize a political donation is forbidden under both state and federal election law, there is no such prohibition against offering a reward that is not tied to an donation. For example, anyone with a working email address has probably been invited to participate in a survey seeking opinions on a candidate’s campaign strategies. The incentive to participate in the survey is an opportunity to be a dinner guest at the candidate’s Florida beachfront mansion, with complimentary travel and accommodation. Of course, once you have completed the survey you will be invited to make a donation to the candidate, but you are not required to do so, you will still have a chance to make it dinner with the candidate.
While dinner with Harris and Walz is worth nothing in my opinion, indeed, one might pay not to have to choke on it, and the photo commemorating the occasion will likely be best forgotten after the election, there is nevertheless a significant value to the promised air fare and accommodation. And that is where Harris and Walz have, in my opinion, run afoul of election law. They did not separate the reward from the donation, at least not in this solicitation. The fact that some small print elsewhere attempts to establish the separation of the donation from the reward is of no moment—this clearly is a solicitation for a donation with the chance of a reward, without limitation.
Will there be a consequence for Dumb and Dumber? Unlikely. “It’s Chinatown, Jake.”
★
As a practical matter, there’s no chance of anyone being prosecuted for operating a lottery based on the Harris/Walz campaign technique. Yet, anyone who has paid money, reasonably perceiving payment to be required in order to have a chance of winning the prize, has, in reality, participated in a lottery.
In California, a lottery is defined by Penal Code §319 as “any scheme for the disposal or distribution of property by chance, among persons who have paid or promised to pay any valuable consideration for the chance of obtaining such property….” Under a 1938 Los Angeles Superior Court Appellate Department opinion in People v. Settles, personal property encompasses an “obligation” being created to the prize-winner.
Some might not see a chance to have a photo taken with Harris and Walz to constitute anything of value. However, those running the lottery view the obligation on the part of the candidates to the winner—along with the free trip and lodging—to have a cash value. An email sent Sunday says:
“Travel to and one (1) night hotel stay at a location to be determined solely by Sponsor and an opportunity to meet and snap a photo with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz (approx. retail value $3,000).”
An email purportedly from Tim Walz with a similar message also arrived on Friday. It says, “Hey, Roger, I’m just so thrilled to be on this journey with you” and advises: “If you donate to this email, you could win a chance to meet me and Vice President Harris at an event before Election Day.”
Neither of the emails mentions the possibility of entering the contest without paying money. It’s only if you click through to contribute that you will see (if you read through the rules, in a sea of type—782 words) this message:
“No purchase, payment, or contribution is necessary to enter or win and will not improve chances of winning. Void where prohibited. This promotion begins on August 10, 2024 at 12:01 a.m. ET. Entries must be received by October 4, 2024 at 11:59 PM ET.”
(Hmmm. So there really wasn’t a midnight deadline on Friday.)
★
Two email sent Sunday—one supposedly being a personal message from Harris, have tiny type at the bottom saying, “No purchase, payment, or contribution is necessary to enter or win and will not improve chances of winning. Void where prohibited….Enter by contributing here or click here to enter without contributing.”
By contrast, and higher up, is this message:
“Rush a $25 donation (or any amount that’s meaningful to you) and you’ll be automatically entered for a chance to win!
Despite the disclaimer (assuming that it’s read), is anyone apt to suppose that an “entry” by a person who does not contribute money have any chance of winning?
In any event, I clicked on the link “to enter without contributing” to find out what would appear. It brought up a page saying:
“DON’T PANIC.
“It looks like you’ve stumbled onto an error on our site.
“Our team has been notified and will look into it.”
I’m not panicking.
★
By the way, do you believe that the photo of the Democratic candidates, appearing above, was actually a “selfie” taken by “Tim,” with his cellphone decidedly tilted and so much of the background appearing? Phoniness marks the campaign approach.
Personalized campaign messages are nothing new. Emails are sent out by candidates and office-holders, addressing the recipient by his or her first name, as if the sender was an old buddy. I wonder how many recipients are actually duped into supposing that the message is something other than a mass-marketing tool.
The Harris/Walz effort has a twist. Emails went to me—and I assume throngs of other registered Republicans—reflecting a feigned supposition that I’m a Democratic Party supporter. Messages include these:
“Roger, you’re one of Kamala’s top supporters.” “Thank you for being in our corner, Roger.” “Thanks for all you do to support this campaign.” “Kamala and Tim will be so thankful to hear that you chipped in when it mattered most.” Etc.
Purportedly from Walz: “Hey, Roger, I’m just so thrilled to be on this journey with you….Are you with me, Roger?” Seemingly direct from Harris: “One of my favorite parts about being on the campaign trail is meeting supporters just like you, Roger.”
How many voters are so gullible as to have the desired reaction that “Gee, the vice president and her running mate think I’m on their side—I just can’t let my friends down”?
I suspect that fewer are duped by the technique than are repulsed by it. It’s disingenuous and silly.
And the stunt of raffling off a chance to meet them should be beneath the dignity of those who seek the presidency and vice presidency of the United States.
★★★
HOCHMAN’S FOLLY—District Attorney candidate Nathan Hochman, by endorsing Harris for president, has blown what chance he might have had of gaining statewide office in the future
As of July 5, 45.10 percent of voters in the state were registered as Democrats and 27.09 were members of the Republican Party. That ratio is not likely to change appreciably in the near future.
Just about the only way a Republican could be elected to a statewide office in “Blue” California would be to win a local nonpartisan contest and build up massive name recognition. In 2010, then-Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley almost made it, losing the race for attorney general to Harris by less than one percent of the vote.
Had Hochman kept his mouth shut as to his preference in the presidential race—certainly not being obliged to declare how he would vote in a national partisan election—he would have had a chance of someday gaining higher office, assuming he beats District Attorney George Gascón in the Nov. 5 run-off.
But as it stands…it’s a certainty that Hochman, in a future partisan race, would not be favored by Republicans, seeing him as a turncoat and untrustworthy; his endorsement of Harris would likely not be enough for Democratic voters to be attracted to him given that he was the 2022 Republican candidate for state attorney general (though he is now registered with no party preference).
His move was a blunder.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company