April 30, 2010 01:50 AM UTC

MAJOR Electioneering Change Perhaps Unleashed

•  
• by: Colorado Pols

John Haney, a candidate for Denver City Council, issued a press release today that could have tremendous implications on electioneering rules nationwide…if what he claims is really true.

According to the press release, Haney says that the 18th Judicial District ruled today in his favor that he can distribute 61 cent stamps along with his get out the vote efforts (Denver’s City Council election is all mail-ballot).

Last week The Denver Post had a brief story on the issue and an investigation into the legality of providing voters with stamps:

Prosecutors are reviewing whether a Denver police detective running for City Council violated state law by including 61-cent stamps on door hangings that potential voters could use for the all-mail election.

John Haney maintains that the 2,000 stamps he provided in his campaign literature were legal, but others are disputing the tactic…

…Colorado law states it is unlawful to offer “any valuable consideration” to encourage an individual to vote at any election. State law also specifies that voters “must provide postage” when returning their ballot by mail.

Haney, in an interview, said he had two lawyers advise him that the stamps he provided voters were legal. He declined to give the names of the lawyers because he said they wanted to remain confidential. He said he gave the stamps to encourage residents to vote in the special all-mail-ballot election May 4.

“It’s the same thing as transporting them to the polls,” Haney said. “It’s not for them to vote for me. It’s just for them to vote.”

If Haney’s statement is true, and he was informed today that he can provide stamps for GOTV efforts, then we’re about to see every campaign in the country ratcheting up their GOTV budgets in order to increase the chances of getting mail ballots returned.

We’re not ready to take Haney’s word for it that everything is hunky-dorey here, because from what we understand most campaign finance attorneys have always advised that providing stamps is illegal. If Haney really does have a solid legal ruling, this decision would be a huge surprise, and we’d have to imagine that this would be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court — if nothing else because of the whole “slippery slope” argument. If you can give someone a stamp, who’s to say that you can’t give them an entire book of stamps? If the Post Office runs out of stamps, can you give a voter the 61 cents in cash?

Politically, the repercussions of this would be tremendous. Both Democrats and Republicans would have to increase their fundraising by millions of dollars in order to provide stamps. And every campaign would have to provide stamps for fear that their opponent was doing it as well; voters could end up getting dozens of stamps in the mail from various candidates and causes.

Come to think of it, maybe this is all just an ingenious evil plan by the Post Office.