CSC 379 SUM2008:Week 1, Group 2

Political Uses of Spam for Special Interests and Influencing Elections

Acts of defamation through spam and chain letters present many ethical concerns and can have significant impacts on the public perception of political issues, candidates, or can be used as a medium to spread misinformation to surreptitiously influence elections. Provide an overview of the ways spam and chain letters can be used to influence politics, providing a brief review of the ethical concerns each raises, and links to online resources that cite specific instances or effects of each. Also briefly examine legal and ethical considerations in regulating political spam. DUE FRIDAY 11:30PM

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn12754-hackers-could-skew-us-elections.html

Spam and Chain Letters in Politics

E-mail presents candidates with a new medium to reach the voters. Traditionally, advertising through a new technology costs more - television ads cost more than radio ads, which cost more than print ads. However, the advantage of e-mail is that it costs so little. Each e-mail message costs roughly two cents, while a direct mail message costs about 35 cents.40 Thus, e-mail has the potential to liberate candidates from the stranglehold of special interest groups. Historically, the key to a successful campaign was a deep war chest. How else could someone pay for all those television spots? Referring to California gubernatorial candidate Bill Jones' much-maligned e-mail campaign, two political experts wrote, "In an era of cynicism toward money in politics - money typically spent on other unsolicited communication mediums - Jones tried to level the playing field."41 E-mail reduces a candidate's dependency on fund raising, and diminishes the role of money in elections.

Acquiring votes by e-mail is a logical extension of campaigning by telephone or mail, and is nothing but marketing for political ends. Whenever the e-mails are unsolicited, they qualify as spam. They can be sent by, on behalf of, or without any knowledge by, the favoured party or candidate. Young politicians and older statesmen, are coming up with savvy ways of using spam and chain letters to influence or communicate with large audiences. Spam campaigns have become increasingly more popular on a national level and even on local political levels. With the technology readily available it would make sense for politicians to utilize this as a resource to reach a certain demographic audience or a broad range of its constituents.

Election-themed spam is the latest, and largest, example of topical spam — messages linked to a news event. The ploy surfaced during the U.S. war against Iraq and gained steam during California's recall election. Nearly 1.4 billion messages linked to the presidential election have been sent since August, with a 300% jump since September 2004.

With this new power to connect with voters and constituents also comes with the ability to abuse this power. In a completely ethical world political figures would only spam those who have agreed to receive such emails. And the content of the spam would be truthful and relevant to the reader. In reality this is not the case. Many people in the city of Pittsburgh for example, complained about receiving several spam emails from a candidate for mayor which they did not request. Even after complaining and requesting to be removed from the list the spam still came in. It was later determined that someone who didn't work for the mayors office entered these peoples emails through a web form off the mayors website.

Another form of spam in the political realm are chain letters sent by independent groups or individuals. Some of the more famous instances of political spam were during the 2004 presidential elections. These messages can be as caustic as they are humorous. One shows a photo of two toilets marked Kerry and Edwards with the sign, "Flush The Johns." A bogus e-mail from "George W. Bush" recites a "résumé" with embarrassing disclosures.

Ethical concerns

Politicians love to spam for the same reason that Viagra vendors and alleged widows of deposed Nigerian dictators do: Bulk e-mail is a cheap way to reach lots of people. Sen. Joseph Lieberman was caught spamming, as was Howard Dean's ostensibly tech-savvy campaign. Republicans Bill Jones, the unsuccessful candidate for governor of California, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and senatorial candidate Elizabeth Dole have resorted to junk e-mail, too.

Politicians could, of course, regulate themselves. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have enacted rules governing how their members may use U.S. mail. Unfortunately, most elected representatives show no signs of being able to police their Internet outreach.

http://news.cnet.com/Political-spam-as-national-pastime/2010-1028_3-5213287.html

Taking a cue from phishing con artists, political scammers might seek to hijack or spoof the official sites of campaigns or local election boards, giving their misinformation an added veneer of credibility. Similarly, spoofed e-mails could be employed to persuade recipients that information is coming from a trusted source. In addition to conventional denial of service attacks, the Internet might also be used to facilitate distributed phone-jamming, of the sort often used to disrupt get-out-the-vote efforts. “

Critics detest political spam as another nuisance. To many, unsolicited political e-mails are no different than commercial spam or junk mail. It invades your living room; it clogs your inbox. Advocates, though, see political e-mail in a higher light. "Political e-mail is not selling widgets. The free flow of ideas and information is critical to keeping the U.S. political system and First Amendment of the Constitution intact. Like other forms of political speech - direct mail, television and radio advertising - the medium should not be hindered."42 Advocates also point out that political e-mail is no worse for the voter-recipient than political advertising on other media.

E-mail is no more intrusive than direct mail, telemarketing, or TV advertising when it comes to politicians seeking to reach voters. A simple link in good e-mail campaigns allows recipients to opt out of future mailings. Direct mail takes at least a phone call or stamp to be taken off the list, and viewers must repeatedly endure TV ads.43

In truth, many complaints about political spam come from people who never should have received the e-mail. When Bill Jones e-mailed over a million people, one of the biggest criticisms was the inaccuracy of his mailing list.44 Intending to mail only California residents, the campaign sent the e-mail to a number of people with the suffix ".ca," a Canadian domain.45 That is a technological mistake - one that is correctable as the practice and sophistication of political e-mailing progress. It is not enough to stifle political e-mailing altogether.

Legal Concerns

Communication over the Internet (including e-mail) is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.8 Political speech has the highest value among protected forms of speech, and therefore receives the greatest protection:

Debate on the qualifications of candidates is at the core of our electoral process and of the First Amendment freedoms, not at the edges. The role that elected officials play in our society makes it all the more imperative that they be allowed freely to express themselves on matters of current public importance. . . . We have never allowed the government to prohibit candidates from communicating relevant information to voters during an election.

In scrutinizing speech regulation, courts apply different standards to regulations that restrict what is said and where or how it is said. Content-based regulations of political speech warrant strict scrutiny, requiring a law narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest.10 However, the government may impose "reasonable" restrictions on the time, place, and manner of political speech (a.k.a. "content-neutral" restrictions) that are "adequately" justified.11 Within this latter category, courts further define these restrictions by the type of forum regulated. Generally, to restrict the time, place, or manner of speech on public property, the regulation must serve an important interest and leave open adequate alternative places for speech.12 Courts apply lower standards for public property that is not typically a forum for political discussion.13 The First Amendment also does not guarantee free speech on private property, enabling property owners to regulate speech content and delivery.

Links

[[1]] [[2]]

Sources

1. Mike McCurry and Larry Purpuro, A Vote for Political Spam, Boston Globe, Aug. 23, 2002, at A27.

2. Larry Purpuro, The Big Push: The Case for Political E-mailing, Campaigns & Elections, Oct. 2002, at 47.

3. McCurry and Purpuro, supra note 40.

4. shopaim.org (http://www./Keep-America-Clean--Flush-Both-Johns_p_47-153.html)