Support NeoGAF

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...&u=/ap/20041005/ap_en_ot/people_michael_moore

"Republicans say filmmaker Michael Moore should be prosecuted for offering underwear, potato chips and Ramen noodles to college students in exchange for their promise to vote.

The Michigan Republican Party has asked four county prosecutors to file charges against Moore, charging that his get-out-the-vote stunt amounts to bribery.


"We want everyone to participate in this year's election, but not because they were bribed or coerced by the likes of Michael Moore," said Greg McNeilly, executive director of the state Republican Party."

Do they have nothing better to do?

 

[Chony]

Republican Party: Don't Vote.

 

[Suranga3]

Man, the majority of this board has a real dislike of them republicans. I love it!

 

[MetatronM]

Maybe they should worry more about why ramen is a more motivating reason for college students to vote than their candidates and major election issues.

 

[Error Macro]

I heard about one guy that was a registered Democrat who murdered three people in Kentucky.


All Democrats are murderers.

 

[Dan]

Meh, if those claims are true and that Michigan law exists I don't really have a problem with it. According to the article it's blatantly illegal and not some wild manipulation or exaggeration of the facts. I'm so sick of people, especially celebrities, trying to get people to vote certain ways by using their celebrity status and fanbase or other non-political arguments to convince people of something.

And take off the Michigan State hat, goddammit! You didn't fucking attend!

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

And take off the Michigan State hat, goddammit! You didn't fucking attend!

Nor is my brother a member of the Indianapolis Colts.

 

[Mega Man's Electric Sheep]

I see the point you are trying to make, but I see this story more about the irrational hatred Republicans have for Michael Moore, which obviously extends beyond Michigan. If anyone else was doing this, they wouldn't have said boo.

 

[border]

Uhhhh, I think the problem with their complaint is that he's not a political candidate and not acting for the Democrats in any official capacity, so it's not like he's really bribing them to vote for any one candidate or party. He's just asking them to vote, so it kinda looks like they're demanding that the students not vote.

Funny that they should use the "briberd and coerced" phrase, since it's been so strongly associated with Bush and his "international coalition".....I don't see how you could remotely say that they've been "coerced", since coercion involves a threat of some type. Maybe they think that not being awarded some lame gag gift is a threat?

 

[Jim Bowie]

And take off the Michigan State hat, goddammit! You didn't fucking attend!

Nor did I participate in Rage Against the Machine.

Also, this isn't bribery. They got prizes for coming on stage and saying that they'll vote. That's like saying "WZPL is the best radio station in the world!" for $25 bucks.

 

[KingV]

I see the point you are trying to make, but I see this story more about the irrational hatred Republicans have for Michael Moore, which obviously extends beyond Michigan. If anyone else was doing this, they wouldn't have said boo.

Honestly, I think Michael Moore hates Republicans just as much if not more than Republicans hate him, in general.

 

[border]

Also, this isn't bribery. They got prizes for coming on stage and saying that they'll vote. That's like saying "WZPL is the best radio station in the world!" for $25 bucks.

Yeah, they can kind of sidestep this by saying that the students were rewarded for standing up and advocating voting in front of their peers....not specifically for promising to vote.

Of course I guess it depends on how they handled it. If they specifically said, "You get a prize if you promise to vote", then they might be in some hot water.

Moore will probably update his site with his side of things within the next couple days.

 

[Dan]

Did any of you actually READ the article?

violating Michigan's election law, which prohibits a person from contracting with another for something of value in exchange for agreeing to vote.

It states that Michigan election law prevents ANYONE from offering something of monetary value in exchange for a promise to VOTE. Simple as that. It's not a promise to vote for a certain candidate and it doesn't matter who's doing it.

If anyone else was doing this, they wouldn't have said boo.

I don't disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, the law's the law. If someone else were doing it and not being prosecuted, I wouldn't be pleased about that either.

 

[RiZ III]

People are voting, Bush am crying

 

[Teddman]

A rare misstep for Republican PR. If this is heavily publicized, it will backfire and only help Moore's cause, regardless of the merit to their claims under Michigan law. It makes the Republicans complaining look petty.

"Oh no, Moore was offering potato chips in exchange for promises to register to vote! Quick, put him in jail!"

 

[Drensch]

Do they have nothing better to do?

Hey, the repugs have a lock on manipulating the vote. I'd protect my racket as well.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Did any of you actually READ the article?


It states that Michigan election law prevents ANYONE from offering something of monetary value in exchange for a promise to VOTE. Simple as that. It's not a promise to vote for a certain candidate and it doesn't matter who's doing it.


I don't disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, the law's the law. If someone else were doing it and not being prosecuted, I wouldn't be pleased about that either.

Oh for god's sake, its not like he is promsing 100 bucks to each person who votes democratic or anything. Yes, if he was giving them cold hard cash that was of greater value then lets say, a buck, yeah, then I might say you have a case. But go over what he gave them again: chips, raman, and underwear. I would be more worried about what lobbyists do then giving away a thong to some college kid. Christ almighty...

 

[Dan]

What? I think the principle of offering something to someone for "pledging" to vote is wrong. People should be voting on their own accord, simple as that. If it takes a celebrity to show up at their college with some ramen noodles... well, I would question whether they know or care enough to make any kind of informed decision.

Is it stupid to pursue this? Yes, I'm sure it's a waste of the prosecutor's time and it surely will do no good for the Republican party if the news gets out, as Teddman explained. I think the principle is solid though, but the law will forever be stuck in a Catch 22 because anyone that tries to prosecute it will be painted as attempting to prevent someone's political beliefs from being offered. I think in principle though, it's sound, and I'm not going to complain if the prosecution went through with it if there's indeed a case to be made.

But yeah, clearly I'm the devil because I don't worship the ground that the infallible Michael Moore steps on.

And don't bring up lobbyist crap. That's a whole different issue. I hate people who try and make one problem okay by simply pointing out that there are bigger yet unrelated issues out in the world. No shit, but one big wrong doesn't make a smaller wrong okay.

 

[Jak140]

I personally think Michael Moore is a douche who creates manipulative tripe (okay, maybe that's a bit too harsh), but even I can see that they were fucking gag gifts meant for a laugh and not as some sort of bribe.

 

[Drensch]

It states that Michigan election law prevents ANYONE from offering something of monetary value in exchange for a promise to VOTE. Simple as that.

Do tax cuts count?

 

[Dan]

Do tax cuts count?

Heh, I wish. I hate how short term benefits are used to maintain support.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Is it stupid to pursue this? Yes, I'm sure it's a waste of the prosecutor's time and it surely will do no good for the Republican party if the news gets out, as Teddman explained.

Sorry, if I misread the following quote wrong, but you sure seemed to be intent on Moore being prosecuted.

I don't disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, the law's the law. If someone else were doing it and not being prosecuted, I wouldn't be pleased about that either.

Look, I don't give a rats ass as long as people don't do what they did to create these laws, you know round up a whole bunch of immigrants and make em vote 3 times for shelter or something, but giving raman to get a college kid to maybe think about politics, hey, its better then him sitting on his ass in November.

 

[Dan]

I'm just saying that if all the allegations are true, and it's discovered and pointed out in the news, I think it'd be counterproductive to then not prosecute. That's basically giving someone a free ride, publicly, and that's not something terribly productive when it comes to protecting the law.

In this case, the best thing for the Republicans would be that this was never mentioned. You either prosecute it and look petty and biased, or you don't and you pave the way for more of it. If the law's flawed, then by all means remove it, but I don't think having a law in place and not enforcing it is remotely productive. It just makes the government look hypocritical and weak.

but giving raman to get a college kid to maybe think about politics, hey, its better then him sitting on his ass in November.

Assuming that the kid actually thinks about the election and educates himself about it, then yes, perhaps, but that's a pretty huge assumption in my experience. I just think if someone's going to vote it should be because they're motivated by the issues and not because someone else convinced them to, one way or another.

 

[nubbe]

Encouraging people to vote should definitely be illegal! It hinders the democratic process!

 

[ConfusingJazz]

I'm just saying that if all the allegations are true, and it's discovered and pointed out in the news, I think it'd be counterproductive to then not prosecute. That's basically giving someone a free ride, publicly, and that's not something terribly productive when it comes to protecting the law.

Sorry in advance for this, but you say you think its a waste of the prosecutors time, then say its counterproductive to not prosecute, are you flip flopping?

In this case, the best thing for the Republicans would be that this was never mentioned. You either prosecute it and look petty and biased, or you don't and you pave the way for more of it. If the law's flawed, then by all means remove it, but I don't think having a law in place and not enforcing it is remotely productive. It just makes the government look hypocritical and weak.

Well, I am gonna have to disagree with you on this one, I think it wastes time and money to go after something this small. And no, I think if you are actually bribing somebody to vote, like Moore was giving them 20 bucks to go vote, then fine, slap him a fine for bribery. For giving a gag gift to promise to vote, not actually vote, you are gonna strike down a law?

Assuming that the kid actually thinks about the election and educates himself about it, then yes, perhaps, but that's a pretty huge assumption in my experience. I just think if someone's going to vote it should be because they're motivated by the issues and not because someone else convinced them to, one way or another.

As opposed to people that listen to talk radio and 24 hour cable news networks?

 

[Dan]

Sorry in advance for this, but you say you think its a waste of the prosecutors time, then say its counterproductive to not prosecute, are you flip flopping?

Well, I am gonna have to disagree with you on this one, I think it wastes time and money to go after something this small. And no, I think if you are actually bribing somebody to vote, like Moore was giving them 20 bucks to go vote, then fine, slap him a fine for bribery. For giving a gag gift to promise to vote, not actually vote, you are gonna strike down a law?

My answer is that I'm torn between supporting a sound principle and the logistics of doing so. I think it's always troublesome when you start weighing when to prosecute something. As you say, when it's $20, or $10 or some free noodles? I think that the law, as is, should be upheld. If they don't want to deal with trivial stuff like this, then I think the law should be changed to have some kind of threshold, likely dealing with monetary value, what people can do it and in what manner. Allowing certain things to slip by and not others, regardless of their difference, is only going to result in controversy and the questioning of the intent of prosecutors. If they don't want to prosecute something, then it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

As opposed to people that listen to talk radio and 24 hour cable news networks?

They're not offering anything in exchange for someone to vote, or even anything tangible for that matter. They do however offer information on the issues to varying degrees, and someone watching is likely going to be motivated enough to go and vote. I don't see the comparison to someone giving another person something of value in exchange for voting. The only thing someone can receive from listening to talk radio or watching the news is information.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

My answer is that I'm torn between supporting a sound principle and the logistics of doing so. I think it's always troublesome when you start weighing when to prosecute something. As you say, when it's $20, or $10 or some free noodles? I think that the law, as is, should be upheld. If they don't want to deal with trivial stuff like this, then I think the law should be changed to have some kind of threshold, likely dealing with monetary value, what people can do it and in what manner. Allowing certain things to slip by and not others, regardless of their difference, is only going to result in controversy and the questioning of the intent of prosecutors. If they don't want to prosecute something, then it shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

You ever been sped a little bit? Have you ever not paid a parking fine, especially if you never have gotten one before? Seems to me that each and every one of these precautions should be struck down because the police usually don't go after someone going 7 or 8 mph over, or go after nonhabitual parking fines. According to you, everybody that does that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law or the law be removed, which would be a legistical nightmare down at the courts or bodily harm on the roads. It seems to me the reason they don't usually go after the small fry is because you would just waste money on something. I would be really pissed if my tax dollars would be going to a case where a guy was accused of bribing with raman.

They're not offering anything in exchange for someone to vote, or even anything tangible for that matter. They do however offer information on the issues to varying degrees, and someone watching is likely going to be motivated enough to go and vote. I don't see the comparison to someone giving another person something of value in exchange for voting. The only thing someone can receive from listening to talk radio or watching the news is information.

I would consider Micheal Moore's disinformation on par with most talk radio shows.

 

[Keio]

There are many laws in this world which shouldn't be, and which luckily aren't, enforced all the time.

http://www.fun-facts.com/fact-195.html?sort=date&dir=

In my opinion, prohibiting handing out of ramen noodles and thongs to students who say they will vote would fit that list pretty well.

Remember the cliche: "respect the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law" or something like that.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Remember the cliche: "respect the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law" or something like that.

Thanks for saying something I have been trying to say for the last hour or so.

 

[Dan]

You ever been sped a little bit? Have you ever not paid a parking fine, especially if you never have gotten one before? Seems to me that each and every one of these precautions should be struck down because the police usually don't go after someone going 7 or 8 mph over, or go after nonhabitual parking fines. According to you, everybody that does that should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law or the law be removed, which would be a legistical nightmare down at the courts or bodily harm on the roads.

If roads had proper speed limits, I would have no problem with prosecuting speeders. However, local and state governments have done an utterly piss poor job at being remotely consistent or appropriate in assigning limits. As for parking violations, a lot of those are bullshit to begin with, and considering the government doesn't go after them all, I'd say they kinda agree with me and back up my point in that it makes their positions on such things questionable. Besides, these things are more about being sources of revenue than about really protecting people or anything.

I would consider Micheal Moore's disinformation on par with most talk radio shows.

But that's not what any of this is about... it's about giving tangible benefits to people in exchange for their voting.

Remember the cliche: "respect the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law" or something like that.

Which is awesome in theory, but it can never be fair in practice.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Dan, here is all I have to say and then its sleeping or something for me.

Moore had a voter registration drive which have been very common, think Rock the Vote, and, if you come to UT, the University Democrats.

Moore realizes that he may get more registerations by a publicity stunt, which was if you promise to vote, then you will get: raman, thong, or chips.

Republicans saw this as weakness and are trying to prosecute him by taking a stick and shoving it up the bribery law's ass. The law was originally supposed to prevent politcal machines from manufactoring votes in the slums, typically on election night so the opponant had no idea what was going to hit him in the face. It also prevents outright bribery by anybody to get somebody to vote for a particular person.

I would hope to believe that the courts will realize this is an abuse of that law, and throw any case out. And yes, Dan, they can and have thrown cases that try to abuse the laws.

 

[Dan]

I would hope to believe that the courts will realize this is an abuse of that law, and throw any case out. And yes, Dan, they can and have thrown cases that try to abuse the laws.

No, really? All I'm saying is that I think these things should be sorted out before it's made a law, not after. If that were done, we wouldn't even need to talk about whether this may or may not be prosecuted.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

I thought that bribery shit only applied to people actually running for office?

 

[Matlock]

I dunno if having underwear that Michael Moore touched at any point in his life is a good thing or not.

 

[Pimpwerx]

What? I think the principle of offering something to someone for "pledging" to vote is wrong. People should be voting on their own accord, simple as that. If it takes a celebrity to show up at their college with some ramen noodles... well, I would question whether they know or care enough to make any kind of informed decision.

Is it stupid to pursue this? Yes, I'm sure it's a waste of the prosecutor's time and it surely will do no good for the Republican party if the news gets out, as Teddman explained. I think the principle is solid though, but the law will forever be stuck in a Catch 22 because anyone that tries to prosecute it will be painted as attempting to prevent someone's political beliefs from being offered. I think in principle though, it's sound, and I'm not going to complain if the prosecution went through with it if there's indeed a case to be made.

But yeah, clearly I'm the devil because I don't worship the ground that the infallible Michael Moore steps on.

And don't bring up lobbyist crap. That's a whole different issue. I hate people who try and make one problem okay by simply pointing out that there are bigger yet unrelated issues out in the world. No shit, but one big wrong doesn't make a smaller wrong okay.

You should be more outraged by lobbyists who give the very candidates we vote for money and other favors in exchange for their votes. I don't think that law applies in this situation, and even if it did, I wouldn't care. Getting people out to vote is a good thing, period. What annoys me isn't someone being pushed to vote, it's someone being given stuff to make laws. If they even think about prosecuting Moore, they should probably set their sights on lobbyists right after that, b/c Washington lobbyists are doing far more damage to our political process than some college students jonesing for a free t-shirt. PEACE.

 

[xsarien]

Maybe they should worry more about why ramen is a more motivating reason for college students to vote than their candidates and major election issues.

There are students who are getting free Ramen if they vote? Damn, all I got was the satisfaction of filling out an absentee ballot.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

This is fucking stupid. Not like Moore demanded the students vote Democrat in return for his noodles.

 

[tedtropy]

Pfft, I don't want some fat guy's noodles. Think I'll go with these guys - http://www.votergasm.org.

 

[Raven.]

Did any of you actually READ the article?


It states that Michigan election law prevents ANYONE from offering something of monetary value in exchange for a promise to VOTE. Simple as that. It's not a promise to vote for a certain candidate and it doesn't matter who's doing it.


I don't disagree, but as far as I'm concerned, the law's the law. If someone else were doing it and not being prosecuted, I wouldn't be pleased about that either.

Uhmm, as said don't candidates always promise tax-cuts, student aids, from time to time new or improved services, and the like? In fact they even go around telling people to vote for them and giving'em promo material, pins, flyers, cards, pens, all saying "vote for XXXX".

 

[Dan]

Uhmm, as said don't candidates always promise tax-cuts, student aids, from time to time new or improved services, and the like?

Yes, but none of that is immediate or remotely guaranteed. And those benefits wouldn't be exclusive to those who voted, let alone voted for that candidate.

In fact they even go around telling people to vote for them and giving'em promo material, pins, flyers, cards, pens, all saying "vote for XXXX".

Yes, but the people don't have to promise to vote in exchange for those things.

 

[DarthWoo]

I don't know about Michael Moore's tactics, but these people sure have a more enticing method.

 

[alejob]

I heard about one guy that was a registered Democrat who murdered three people in Kentucky.


All Democrats are murderers.

Bush is republican. I WIN!!!!

 

[Raven.]

Yes, but the people don't have to promise to vote in exchange for those things.

That we know of... but I'm sure, they've probably said from time to time: "I'm counting on your vote, be sure to give me your vote, and remember you're voting for, remember who you're gonna vote for, You know you're gonna have to vote for me, I'm sure some might've even teased: Promise me, you'll give me your vote or I wont give yooouuu, etc."