U.S. Senators Check Schumer and Barak (-Star) Obama are putting the pressure on to halt the Lyin' and Cheatin' that has too often stained recent elections. Judging by the New York Times editorial they are on the right track.

One of the downfalls of the Republican RadicalRightWingnuts is their dismal moral record of resorting to lies, distortions and dirty tricks to steal elections that their candidates can't carry on merit (i.e., lack of) alone. A few jail sentences might do the trick to break the strangle-hold the radicals have over Republican Party institutions in Colorado and other states.

Criminal penalties for this conduct are the needed remedy. Financial disclosure alone relies too much on integrity and honorable behavior that is already compromised. When the RadicalRightWingnut big-spender decides to bankroll a dirty campaign mere disclosure of the size of the check has little meaning. The only concern of the politically corrupt financier is winning.

Sure, wider and more frequent contributor disclosure of 527 Committee contributions will identify those responsible. But, the only consequence is publicity and whining. The publicity is only helpful if the media accurately covers the revelation, and the whining further undermines the resolve and stature of the complainers.

It is difficult to convince the fickle electorate that you, or your candidates, deserve their vote when your dominant characteristic is complaining that Mr. Big is bankrolling an ad campaign that makes you look bad, and gives your Republican RadicalRightWingnut opponent an unfair advantage. It degrades the situation to the level of kids running to a parent to settle a fight.

There is no harm in the current Colorado bill seeking an improved 527 Committee reporting system. It could be vastly improved by adding criminal penalties for Lyin', Cheatin' and Stealin' elections.

January 31, 2007

Editorial

Honesty in Elections

On Election Day last fall in Maryland, fliers were handed out in black neighborhoods with the heading "Democratic Sample Ballot" and photos of black Democratic leaders -- and boxes checked off beside the names of the Republican candidates for senator and governor. They were a blatant attempt to fool black voters into thinking the Republican candidates were endorsed by black Democrats. In Orange County, Calif., 14,000 Latino voters got letters in Spanish saying it was a crime for immigrants to vote in a federal election. It didn't say that immigrants who are citizens have the right to vote.

Dirty tricks like these turn up every election season, in large part because they are so rarely punished. But two Democratic senators, Barack Obama of Illinois and Charles Schumer of New York, are introducing a bill today that would make deceiving or intimidating voters a federal crime with substantial penalties.

The bill aims at some of the most commonly used deceptive political tactics. It makes it a crime to knowingly tell voters the wrong day for an election. There have been numerous reports of organized efforts to use telephones, leaflets or posters to tell voters, especially in minority areas, not to vote on Election Day because voting has been postponed.

The bill would also criminalize making false claims to voters about who has endorsed a candidate, or wrongly telling people -- like immigrants who are registered voters in Orange County -- that they cannot vote.

Along with defining these crimes and providing penalties of up to five years' imprisonment, the bill would require the Justice Department to counteract deceptive election information that has been put out, and to report to Congress after each election on what deceptive practices occurred and what the Justice Department did about them.

The bill would also allow individuals to go to court to stop deceptive practices while they are happening. That is important, given how uninterested the current Justice Department has proved to be in cracking down on election-season dirty tricks.

The bill is careful to avoid infringing on First Amendment rights, and that is the right course. But in steering clear of regulating speech, it is not clear how effective the measure would be in addressing one of the worst dirty tricks of last fall's election: a particular kind of deceptive "robocall" that was used against Democratic Congressional candidates. These calls, paid for by the Republicans, sounded as if they had come from the Democrat; when a recipient hung up, the call was repeated over and over. The intent was clearly to annoy the recipients so they would not vote for the Democrat.

While there are already laws that can be used against this sort of deceptive telephone harassment, a more specific bill aimed directly at these calls is needed. But the bill being introduced today is an important step toward making elections more honest and fair. There is no reason it should not be passed by Congress unanimously.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company