Open political spying: Part II
October 26th, 2007 – 6:05 AM by Dennis J. McGrathThe controversy over open political spying Minnesota, which I wrote about yesterday, is not the first flare-up over “trackers” this campaign season.
An even more heated clash occurred in Maine in August, when Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ staff asked the Democratic challenger to get the party to stop tracking her, because her tracker was being intrusive.
Sen. Susan Collins and her “tracker” |
That case is especially illuminating because there are photos or video taken by both camps, showing the Democratic tracker at work.
First, here is the Portland newspaper’s account of how the controversy started. And here is the Bangor Daily News story.
Collins’ director of Internet strategy posted pictures of the tracker stalking Collins at a parade — standing a respectful distance at one point, but intruding into the parade and into Collins’ space in others.
Here on YouTube is the Collins’ campaign’s video of the tracker videotaping her. It’s clear that he’s walking between her and the parade-watchers.
And here is the actual video that the Democratic tracker shot, titled “Susan Collins greets her tracker.” MaineDems posted that long version and they posted a short version here.
You can see that Collins doesn’t seem to be bothered. She asks him to be sure to get her good side and says to him, in a friendly way:
“So are you my tracker, Rick?”
“Yes, ma’am.”
“Ok, well I’ll be seeing you on the campaign trail.”
But Collins’ chief of staff, Steve Abbott, argued that the tracker invaded the privacy of regular citizens who talked with Collins and recorded her from an unacceptably close range. It’s one thing to record her speech, but this tracker crossed the line, Abbott said.
The publisher of a number of area newspapers disagreed. It said in an editorial that Collins’ protestations of being recorded in public “comes from someone who supported the Patriot Act with the attitude, ‘If you’re not doing anything wrong, it shouldn’t bother you.’”
Does this behavior bother you, or is it fair game, protected by the First Amendment? Where do you draw the line in conducting opposition research on rival candidates?
6 Responses to "Open political spying: Part II"
Does this behavior bother you, or is it fair game, protected by the First Amendment?
Public figure. The behavior, though disgusting, has been going on for years and will continue.
How about a meaty topic?
Mr. McGrath keeps calling it “spying.” Are the journalists who record candidate remarks “openly spying” on them, engaging in what McGrath calls “skullduggery?”
The problem with this guy’s behavior is not that he’s videotapoing Collins at a public event, it’s that he’s doing something *more* than that, Mr. McGrath. (eg–he is, in your words, “stalking” her, and intruding into the public event, and into Collins’ personal space.)
I don’t know how this important distinction can fail to elude you in your pursuit of an issue to write about, Mr. McGrath.
I’ll spell it out for you to help you in the future. Two situations:
Situation 1) A citizen recording a politician’s speech, remarks, conduct, or presence at a public event on audio or video= that’s OKAY, Mr. McGrath. (That is not “spying”, that is not “skullduggery” or intimidation or some kind of dirty trick. The candidates, their campaign people, and their parties should permit that and the press should call them out on their “dirty tricks” behavior if they try to intimidate or toss the people with cameras or tape recorders out of the room.)
Situation 2) Citizen showing up at an event ostensibly as a tracker, but getting physically close to the candidate, attempting to intimidate the candidate, attempting to interfere with the event or the campaigning: that’s NOT OKAY, Mr. McGrath.
That’s something more than “tracking”, even if the person doing it is holding a video camera; and it’s that behavior–not “tracking”, not recording or videotaping the candidate at a public event–which should be discouraged and officially disavowed by both parties.
Spying implies covert activity or intent. Doesn’t exist here. The tracker was just being an ass. Not illegal, only obnoxious.
All kinds of overblown outrage here, too. A tracker who demands the right to be disruptive gets little sympathy. Those who marched beside Collins in a parade have no ‘privacy’ to invade. And each party is likely doing the same thing while crying foul at the other.
Like I said in yesterday’s thread, it’s just a big, silly pissing match.
What’s wrong here is what Mr. McGrath’s attempting to do–equate “people with video-cameras taping politicians at public events” with spying, skulduggery, harassment, stalking. If “following around politicians and videotaping them at public events” is “spying, skulduggery, harassment, stalking”–then the professional press should be prohibited from doing that, because they’re doing it every day.
The danger here is that the public might buy into Mr. McGrath’s take on the issue, equate recording for the record with some kind of “stalking” or “skulduggery”, and attempt to restrain people from merely taping politicians’ remarks at public events.
That would be a terrible result for the body politic, because it would encourage politicians to make even *more* false statements and promises than they do, to promise one thing to one audience and another thing to a different audience, to make bigoted and irresponsible remarks before “friendly audiences”–all because they know that there is no “unfriendly” cameraperson there to document their remarks.
This is not a minor issue–the people who put the embarrassing candidate footage up on YouTube are doing the public a great service. They wouldn’t get to see that certain candidates are “two faced” if that footage wasn’t captured. Because sometimes–the professional media *won’t* record or share that evidence of the “two faced” thing.
Please note that in both posts I called it “open” spying and “open” skulduggery. I did that for a reason.
But moving on: I certainly agree that a campaign has an absolute right to attend and record their opponent’s public events. It’s easy to say that, but that doesn’t answer a lot of practical questions.
For example: In the Collins parade, the evidence indicates to me that this tracker was intrusive and crossed the line. Had he stayed off to the side, walking along the sidewalk or grass — then there’s no problem.
But what standards should there be if a group, like a college club, invites a candidate? Do the College Democrats, say, have the right to ban a GOP tracker, while letting everyone else in? Does the candidate have an obligation to insist ahead of time that the organization admit the rival party’s tracker? Does it matter if this is a private college or a public institution, and therefore public property?
What if it’s a non-political group, like a chamber of commerce? If it allows the press in, should it also allow the tracker?
What about this? A candidate’s supporter holds a meet-and-greet at her home. The event is listed on the candidate’s website, implying that it’s open to the public. No press is there. But the tracker shows up and asks to be admitted. Does the homeowner have an obligation to let the tracker in? It’s not a public space, but arguably it’s a public event, or is it? What is the candidate’s obligation here?
Maybe this one is an easier call, but I’ll toss it out anyway, in case people have differing opinions. What about a fundraiser held in a hotel ballroom, where the press is allowed in, along with people who pay? Is it ok to deny access to the tracker here? Is it ok to admit the press but not the tracker?
Mr. McGrath said: “Please note that in both posts I called it “open” spying and “open” skulduggery. I did that for a reason.”
I know you did it for a reason, and I think the reason is that it sounds more alarmist to talk about “open spying” and “open skulduggery” than to call it what it actually is: “citizens showing up at a public event and recording a public appearance by a politician.”
If you called it “citizens showing up at a public event and recording a public appearance by a politician”, the reaction of most readers would be: “Good!! I’m glad citizens are getting involved and making that record.” If you call it “open spying” and “open skulduggery” it sounds like they’re doing something “bad”, “something sinister.” And recording politicians’ remarks to crowd about politics is not bad or sinister.
Of course I agree with you that the Dem tracker was “crossing the line” by getting into the candidate’s face and personal space. It’s the fact that this particular tracker crossed the line that’s the problem. But that particular person’s inappropriate behavior doesn’t mean that it’s “skulduggery” for citizens to volunteer their time to record politicians remarks and public appearances.
As for the questions you asked about “what is a public event/what is a private event”–I’d suggest that the guidelines for admitting trackers be the same as the guidelines for admitting journalists. This isn’t that hard for candidates and their supporters to deal with–if there’s an event in someone’s home and the homeowner implies it’s open to the public: it’s open to the public! To journalists, to trackers, to anyone who wants to attend, right? If the host doesn’t want journalists or trackers to attend and record remarks by the candidate, they can limit “who’s invited” in the invitation/announcement.
“No cameras, video cameras or recording devices allowed. Only those who support this candidate are invited into my home; you will have to express support for this candidate at my door to be admitted.”
I would *love* to see supporters of a particular candidate stipulate *that* as the price of admission to a campaign event! It would be “news”, it would tell the public something important about that candidate and the kind of people who support that candidate.
If they’re not willing to do that, then they should let the tracker or journalist in and let them record the candidate’s remarks (and other speakers’ remarks) to the assembled. That’s news! That’s how former Strib journalist found out that Michele Bachmann was threatening a GOP member with retaliation for opposing her (”You will pay…you will pay…”) Black was attending a GOP event even though he was not a member–if he hadn’t been present he couldn’t have reported it, right?
If the tracker attending an event open to the public becomes disruptive–do what you’d do if a journalist or any other person became disruptive at an event open to the public: call the cops, and have them thrown out of your home or out of the event.
I think it’s wonderful that people are volunteering their time to document candidate remarks; even if they are volunteers for the opposition. It makes the candidates accountable for what they say. So long as they are polite about it and act appropriately while doing so, I don’t see what your problem is.