The Difference Between the Schmidt and McEwen OEC Reprimands

It’s simple: The Schmidt campaign fixed the errors as soon as they were discovered. We can argue all day long about whether they were accidental, inadvertent, or willful, but you can’t deny that they were fixed promptly.

Big deal? Anyone would do that, right?

Well, let’s see how Bob McEwen and his campaign reacted in similar circumstances.

On June 1, 2005, 13 days before the Special Election Primary, Channel 5 broadcast its report, presented the clear language of Ohio Election law, and showed conclusively that, by calling himself “Congressman McEwen” and “Congressman Bob McEwen” in campaign literature, radio ads, and TV ads, Bob McEwen and his campaign were operating in violation of the law.

As a result, Bob McEwen and his campaign changed ….. absolutely nothing.

Oh, they did respond, and here was their “response”:

Wes Farno, McEwen’s campaign manager, issued a written statement Wednesday that said, in part, “We’re not misrepresenting anybody because it’s common knowledge that he served in the United States Congress.”

What a load. The campaign had thirteen days to change what it was doing (probably more, because they likely knew the Channel 5 report was in the works a day or two earlier), and in the computer age, could have had lawful literature and commercials in place by Monday, June 6 at the lastest. If they were sincerely interested in following the law, that’s what they would have done.

Instead, the clear message from the McEwen campaign to Channel, 5, the Ohio Elections Commission, and the voters of the Second District was: Bleep the law, and bleep you.

Everything to this point is fact, not opinion.

What follows IS my opinion.

It is my further belief that the campaign didn’t change their literature or commercials because they were too busy trying to steal the election using the very tactic Channel 5 had exposed.

Here is part of what I planned to say at the OEC on March 16 when the Commission handed down the reprimand in Blumer v. McEwen. I was unable to do so because, after telling the world “bleep you” nine months earlier, Bob “Convenient Change of Heart” McEwen threw himself on the mercy of the Commission, which felt that further elaboration was not necessary.

Well, maybe not there, but certainly here:

Let’s look specifically at the Second District Primary race last spring.

It was an open seat created by the resignation of Rob Portman to become the Bush Administration’s Trade Representative.

There were 11 GOP candidates in the field. None of them, other than Mr. McEwen, had national office experience.

It was scheduled in mid-June, at a time when no other issues, save a couple of school levies, were on the ballot in any of the counties involved.

It was expected to be, and was, a low-turnout election, as you heard James Dobson predict in one of Mr. McEwen’s own radio ads, and the campaign period of five weeks was very compressed.

In that situation, one way clear way a candidate could enhance turnout on his behalf, and only on his behalf, would be to attempt to reach those who might not otherwise be expected to vote, and/or who were likely to vote but were not paying particularly close attention to day-to-day events in the campaign.

What better way to distinguish yourself in an extraordinarily crowded field, and to reach some voters who might not otherwise vote, or voters who aren’t paying very close attention, than to present yourself to them as being in possession of an office you don’t currently hold, one that every other candidate in the field just happens to never have held?

It was a “clever” idea, and it was “cleverly” executed. Unfortunately for Mr. McEwen, it was also clearly illegal.

…. (I would argue against) any leniency Mr. McEwen might feel entitled to, or that Commissioners might feel inclined to grant, as a result of his prior service, (primarily because of) how Mr. McEwen and his campaign reacted when confronted with their clear violations of election law by the press and others, including WLWT Channel 5, on June 1, a full thirteen days before primary Election Day on June 14.

If McEwen and his campaign, because of Mr. McEwen’s extended absence from the state, had somehow been remiss in preparing their campaign promotions and hadn’t thoroughly researched Ohio election law before preparing them, they could have apologized, changed or revised their campaign materials, and resumed their campaign in compliance with the law.

But they did the opposite. Instead, the campaign’s reaction was to issue a statement that said, in part “We’re not misrepresenting anybody because it’s common knowledge that he served in the United States Congress.” This was not the reaction of a campaign that had the least bit of interest in complying with the law, or frankly of even respecting it. Instead, it was a patently absurd and dishonest attempt by smart people who planned their every action during the campaign to pretend that this critical aspect of what they were doing somehow didn’t matter.

I believe to this day that fooling enough relatively uninformed primary voters into either thinking that Bob McEwen was the current incumbent, or that he was a very recent congressman from elsewhere coming back or moving in to serve “his” old district, is what the “Congressman McEwen” tactic was all about.

Why am I so sure?

• First, because on June 14, 2005 McEwen’s counsel “settled” with the gentleman who had brought the original complaint to the OEC on June 9 by essentially agreeing to “go and sin no more.” That complaint was withdrawn as a result of that promise.
• Second, because on January 11, 2006, just before the probable cause hearing in Blumer v. McEwen began, McEwen’s counsel made the same “offer” to me, which I rejected.

Folks, you don’t make the offers McEwen’s counsel made unless you know you’re going to get nailed in the hearing (which they did), which means that there’s no defensible reason why they didn’t change what they were doing when it mattered.

So, yes, I believe that they knew they were guilty as sin on June 1, if not even earlier, and gambled that they could get away with the tactic for the remaining 13 days, win the election with it, and suffer whatever consequences might arise once victory was secured.

Fortunately for the Second District, it didn’t work.
___________________________

UPDATE: Just had to respond to this quote (sixth para at link) from Chris Finney of the “We have nothing to do with the McEwen Campaign but we did give them $1,000” operation known as COAST:

“Ms. Schmidt should be ashamed of herself,” said Urling’s attorney, Christopher Finney of Cincinnati.

Hey Chris — If Ms. Schmidt should “be ashamed” about problems she fixed, what should Bob McEwen be for something he refused to fix?