Anti-49 Group Slammed for Deceptive Tactics
The Dean of Lewis and Clark Law School, Robert Klonoff, has called out Oregonians in Action for using deceptive tactics and trying to pass off an anti-49 mailing as coming from the Law School:
Robert Klonoff, dean of Lewis & Clark Law School, today demanded that the anti-Measure 49 group Oregonians in Action take measures to correct the misimpression that the group's recent statewide mailing came from the law school.The demand was made in a formal letter to David Hunnicutt, president of Oregonians in Action, from the college’s general counsel, David Ellis. A copy of the letter was sent to the Election Division of the office of the Oregon Secretary of State.
The organization’s mailing, sent to many thousands of Oregon voters, was signed by former Lewis & Clark law dean and current professor James Huffman. The envelope used Huffman's and the law school's name on the return address, giving the impression that it was a mailing from the law school and that Huffman's anti-49 message represented the official position of the school.
Klonoff demanded that Oregonians in Action send a letter of correction to all households that received the previous mailing and clarify that the anti-49 message did not represent any official position of Lewis & Clark.
Klonoff had harsh words for the group:
Judging from the large number of voters who have contacted the law school to express their concerns, Klonoff said it is clear that Oregonians in Action has given the impression that the letter was an official mailing from Lewis & Clark. “It’s disappointing that Oregonians in Action would misuse the school’s good name for a partisan political purpose, in what many of our concerned constituents regard as fraud against the voters,” Klonoff said.“In the spirit of academic freedom and our commitment to sound jurisprudence, Lewis & Clark Law School upholds the right of our faculty members to engage in political debates no matter their stance on a particular issue,” Klonoff added. “However, as an academic institution we do not take official positions on ballot measures or any other political issue. Rather, it is our mission to educate lawyers and citizens who can enter such debates with critical thinking, a sound legal foundation, and a commitment to healthy public discourse.
“Fair debate requires that all participants represent their ideas with integrity and sincerity. The misuse of our name by Oregonians in Action violates that fundamental principle. It is deeply troublesome that the group would mislead voters in an attempt to garner support on this controversial issue. They must correct the record immediately.”
Meanwhile, Land Use Watch analyzes Klonoff's statement and wonders if the issue will get noticed in the press:
This is big! Will the press actually cover this huge issue? (Lewis & Clark has now issued THREE press releases on this explosive issue, and I don’t believe The Oregonian, or any other major paper, has mentioned anything about it.)“Fraud against the voters”. “Mislead voters”. “Misuse the school’s good name for a partisan political purpose.” These are strong words used by the Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School in regards to Oregonians In Action and their despicable anti Measure 49 campaign.
For those folks just stumbling upon this, it’s important to recognize that the opposition to Measure 49 has repeatedly relied on tricks and disinformation. This is not the first time they have employed rotten campaign techniques like this. From spam test messages, to false mailings, to ads falsely stating that your house can be taken. Please vote yes on Measure 49 and don’t be swayed by their tactics. They are not an honest broker. You cannot trust their arguments. If the dean of a seminal Oregon law school uses the words “fraud against the voters”, you can be sure that those folks are pretty lowdown.
Read the rest of Klonoff's statement. Could Oregonians in Action's deceitful tactics come back to haunt them this time?
Discuss.
|
Oct. 25, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
10:21 a.m.
Oct 25, '07
Will The Oregonian pick this up and report it to the voting public?
Oct 25, '07
I'd like to see a copy of the mailer posted on the web somewhere so we could make our own judgment. If the mailer did give the public the wrong impression, then this reflects rather poorly on Mr. Huffman.
10:48 a.m.
Oct 25, '07
Why the wait? These letters went out a long time ago, and people have been voting.
And why doesn't the law school require HUFFMAN to pay for a mailing to all the people who he mailed to before? They could dock his pay to fund it.
As with all such deceitful campaigning, it's do the damage first, maybe apologize or fix things after the election -- probably not, though. They did the same thing in 2000 with the Black Eagle mailer disguised as a voter guide "oops! somehow we spent $500,000 and forgot to proof read the mailer and put our return address on it so people thought it came from the Secretary of State -- our bad! Really we didn't mean it."
The other shocking lie today was the anti-49 ad in today's Oregonian where Sen. Ferrioli and some House member were quoted as saying that under Measure 49, government will take your house and property and not compensate you. They're desperate.
It would be fun if 49 passes to go take his house and say, "well, the US and Oregon Constitution require us to pay you, but you said we don't have to, so guess we'll rely on your considered legal opinion."
10:49 a.m.
Oct 25, '07
OK, probably it was only $200,000 they spent on the mailer. The coffee is speaking. Sorry.
Oct 25, '07
Thanks for posting.
Incidentally, the duplicitous tactics used by opponents of Measure 49 -- things like spam texting -- are really pretty incredible and disturbing.
One of the things that I am sure is happening is anonymous commenting on just about any blog you can find related to M49. I am not sure if this is George Advertising itself, or some other entity. But there appears to be a concerted effort to sow seeds of doubt through a host of unconventional and false arguments.
For instance, just browsing around the Web, I have seen arguments such as "I don't have a dog in this fight, so I won't tell others how to use their property" to "This whole thing is a sham because you can't retroactively pass laws... and I know a guy who gave $200,000 to Yes on 49 only to regret it after learning the truth" to "the use of the word 'prohibit' means that they can deny you all the time" to "you have to pay all court costs, even if you win" to "they can steal your house" and so on.
What's interesting is that these are often calibrated to the particular blog... so posts on Blue Oregon will have less strident messages, such as "I'm voting no on both, and things will be just fine". Or messages about not having a dog in the fight.
Anonymous comments need to stop. Or IP addresses should be displayed.
Oct 25, '07
There's a certain amount of deceptiveness on both sides, then. I did some checking on one of the "Yes on 49" group's endorsements. A national association was cited as favoring M49. However, neither the national nor regional offices knew anything of the issue. In fact, they seemed rather taken aback that they were associated with it in this way.
11:08 a.m.
Oct 25, '07
One of the things that I am sure is happening is anonymous commenting on just about any blog you can find related to M49. I am not sure if this is George Advertising itself, or some other entity. But there appears to be a concerted effort to sow seeds of doubt through a host of unconventional and false arguments.
If you think the 49 trolls are bad, just wait for another measure 50 post to go up. I'm not saying that everyone against either measure is a troll, but are definately some out there. It's a disturbing phenomenon these days, it seems to be getting a lot more widespread, it's fundamentally dishonest and disingenuous.
11:14 a.m.
Oct 25, '07
Love the "a national association" assertion above. Please name names and make factual assertions that can be checked. Or stop rumormongering.
11:19 a.m.
Oct 25, '07
Lewis and Clark's real problem is that Huffman regularly uses is title "Former Dean" and the good name of the school in advocacy for Oregonians in Action. Last fall he even went so far as to put the school's name behind his advocacy for a judicial candidate.
Getting a retraction from OIA would be nice, but that won't solve the problem that Huffman uses his L&C credentials freely on behalf of OIA. The dean has done nothing to stop that.
Oct 25, '07
I still have the mailer Robert Klonoff refers to. (My scanner is not quite available to use or I'd scan and post it so those that haven't seen it could take a look.) In the text of the mailer, it's not exactly stated that it comes from Lewis & Clark Law School. In fact, the mailer heading boldly states:
"From the Personal Desk of: Professor James Huffman Former Dean of Lewis & Clark law School"
I don't think I'd go so far as to say using this technique is deceptive, but definitely would say it's sly and heavy handed. Huffman closes his letter in smaller font size with: Sincerely, James Huffman, Professor of Law, Former Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School. That would have been enough.
I don't have any doubts though about Huffman's and Oregons In Action's intent by using this technique though. I'm sure they hoped to sway voters that maybe aren't so street wise, and would trust the word of this professor that milks his old credentials to try kill an important, urgently needed land use protection measure .
12:48 p.m.
Oct 25, '07
I have long suggested that posting comments on BlueOregon be made only through having a free accounts through registration via a working email address. Stops sock-puppeting, name-jacking (intentional or otherwise) as well as puts a serious curb on trolls. It would also facilitate options like for sig lines, unread new comment flagging, etc. Not sure how huge a headache it would be for Kari, et al to implement that, but it would greatly improve BlueOregon IMNSHO.
Oct 25, '07
This may be off topic as far as L&C is concerned, but I wish the pro-49 campaign would point out that both Washington state and dark red Idaho had M37 type measures on their ballots in the last election and both failed. Conservation groups successfully used Oregon and it's M37 as an example of bad policy in those elections. So even Idaho voters said "No thank you" to M37 supposed "property rights".
Maybe this has been pointed out, but I haven't seen it.
Oct 25, '07
sid, that's good news.
is huffman still employed at lewis & clark college? seriously, this is the sort of thing that get people fired at many institutions. using the company/agency/institution letterhead for personal use, in any way that suggests it's involved in the issue is such a huge no-no. the guy must carry some serious weight there to not get bounced out on his arse for it.
Oct 25, '07
you must be retarded to actually think that mailer was endorsed by Lewis and CLark.
1:38 p.m.
Oct 25, '07
is huffman still employed at lewis & clark college? seriously, this is the sort of thing that get people fired at many institutions. using the company/agency/institution letterhead for personal use, in any way that suggests it's involved in the issue is such a huge no-no. the guy must carry some serious weight there to not get bounced out on his arse for it.
Well he is the former dean so he probably gets a bit more leeway than other people. But he is currently a professor at the law school. And he put up some statement on the website saying that he never meant to give the impression that the law school was behind it, his intentions were pure, of course. It's just a big misunderstanding.
I'm all for having him pay for the mailing.
2:07 p.m.
Oct 25, '07
Not sure how huge a headache it would be for Kari, et al to implement that, but it would greatly improve BlueOregon IMNSHO.
We're working on that now. Hope to have it in time for the bulk of the 2008 election year.
Oct 25, '07
GL said: "you must be retarded to actually think that mailer was endorsed by Lewis and CLark."
But you would have to be even more stupid to put an organization's name on something when you were not authorized to represent the organization. Especially for a lawyer (and most law professors have "lawyer" somewhere in their background), the notion of only speaking for a client when authorized to speak, or making it clear that you are NOT speaking for someone else, is a no-brainer. My only question is whether L&C Law School gets enough mileage from it that it generally allows him to do this without chastisement; if so, then it's some form of tacit approval of either Huffman, or all professors, taking stands on issues, using the L&C name.
5:33 p.m.
Oct 25, '07
That's good news Kari, I look forward to the upgrade of BlueOregon when you get it ready to roll out.
Oct 25, '07
As with all such deceitful campaigning, it's do the damage first, maybe apologize or fix things after the election -- probably not, though.
OIA has gone much further. After soiling the law school's name because he needed Huffman's legal "credentials" on his flyer, Dave Hunnicutt has threatened to sue Lewis & Clark for libel.
If this is no big deal, why did Jim Huffman write a public apology?
Huffman wrote: "The inclusion of the law school name in the return address was the result of a miscommunication between me and those who prepared the envelopes... I take full responsibility for this unfortunate mistake."
Hunnicutt apparently approved and sent the mailer without showing it to Huffman first -- now he backpeddles!
Oct 26, '07
Speaking of actions that are underhanded...
Why wasn't there anyone on the Land Use Task Force that believed or advocated for property rights?
Why was the Land Use Fairness Committee so partisan that every major vote was along party lines? Is that fairness?
Why did the Legislature and the Land Use Fairness Committee bypass normal state law, and the judicial system to force the ballot measure onto the ballot with a misleading title?
Why does the Pro-49 commercial show EVERY inch of Oregon covered in red as a measure 37 claim?
What good is the constitution if it does not stop the tyranny of the majority, where two or more neighbors can tell you what you can do or not do with your property, simply because they can out-vote you?
Oct 26, '07
Tyranny of the majority?
Thats it.
They may be underhanded, but it gets it's point across even if it is alittle eggagerated.
Thats why we have voting, OregonActivist. To not only giva us all a stake in the future of the State, but to counterbakance those who feel as you do.
BO has spoken to me and I have changed my mind for the better - YES on M49 (and the ballot is going to the mail right now)
And if you have noticed, my real name is up there now - and I apologize if I offended anyone with my previous comments on M49 which were out of more confusion that anything else.
2:53 p.m.
Oct 26, '07
Some folks here need a bit of exposure to the basic tenets of academic freedom.
Believe it or not, scholars are allowed to take positions on public issues. Doing so does implicitly commit our institutions to the positions we take--we can write opeds, give speeches, endorse candidates, even blog on Blue Oregon.
2:53 p.m.
Oct 26, '07
WHOOPS! Change "does implicitly" to DOES NOT!!
Oct 26, '07
Paul, you've missed the point. No one is saying Huffman should be fired because he was taking advantage of his academic freedoms. People are angry that he did so in a way that makes it look like Lewis & Clark Law School is against Measure 49, not just him.
Oct 26, '07
Paul, you've missed the point. No one is saying Huffman should be fired because he was taking advantage of his academic freedoms. People are angry that he did so in a way that makes it look like Lewis & Clark Law School is against Measure 49, not just him.
Oct 26, '07
Paul, you've missed the point. No one is saying Huffman should be fired because he was taking advantage of his academic freedoms. People are angry that he did so in a way that makes it look like Lewis & Clark Law School is against Measure 49, not just him.
5:03 p.m.
Oct 26, '07
Um, last I checked the legislature followed state law in writing the ballot title and the judicial system upheld the ballot title and threw out the challenge to it.
And the Pro-37 commercial shows all the counties that have a Measure 37 claim, demonstrating that Measure 37 effects us all.
What good is it, indeed, when the people who passed Measure 37 suddenly are speaking up for the rights of the minority and claiming that we shouldn't ask voters what to do?
Oct 27, '07
Am I missing something here???? Why does Huffman need the "authorization" of the school to use their name when citing his credentials?
Who does Bill Clinton need permission from when putting his weight behind something, citing his position as Former President of the United States?
COME ON!! This is what all people do after being in positions of power. That is half the point of getting those positions the first place.
Oct 27, '07
Am I missing something here???? Why does Huffman need the "authorization" of the school to use their name when citing his credentials?
Who does Bill Clinton need permission from when putting his weight behind something, citing his position as Former President of the United States?
COME ON!! This is what all people do after being in positions of power. That is half the point of getting those positions the first place.
8:22 a.m.
Oct 29, '07
Matt,
You have not read the comments carefully. At least one poster called for Huffman to be fired. Another suggested he should be docked pay.
Read today's statement by President Hochstettler; what Huffman did was well within the bounds of academic freedom, and posters here ought to recognize this.
Here are the comments to which I reacted:
JR: But you would have to be even more stupid to put an organization's name on something when you were not authorized to represent the organization....if so, then it's some form of tacit approval of either Huffman, or all professors, taking stands on issues, using the L&C name.
trishka: is huffman still employed at lewis & clark college? seriously, this is the sort of thing that get people fired at many institutions. using the company/agency/institution letterhead for personal use,
chuck: Getting a retraction from OIA would be nice, but that won't solve the problem that Huffman uses his L&C credentials freely on behalf of OIA.
em: And why doesn't the law school require HUFFMAN to pay for a mailing to all the people who he mailed to before? They could dock his pay to fund it.
<hr/>