☆ What to do when partisan institutions interfere with fair elections
Before it goes down the Memory Hole, it's important to remember that in the last election, the local progressive political infrastructure bended—if not outright broke—lots of democratic norms in some truly bad-faith efforts to sway the election. Jackson Reese, VP at the California Policy Center, explains why it happens, and why it’s hard to effectively manage in this exclusive interview with Opportunity Now’s Christopher Escher.
Opportunity Now: Wild, inaccurate charges of racism. Brazenly partisan media. Hilariously false direct mail. Frivolous lawsuits. We saw it all from the progressive left in Santa Clara County in November 2022.
And it actually seemed worse than previously—at least in the Left's brazen-ness. What's going on?
Jackson Reese: It is getting worse as players on both sides are trying out new techniques to sway elections. One of the things we noticed the most was web stories purporting to be from nonprofits, which were pretty obviously aligned with particular campaigns. These were sites that magically appeared before the elections, as well as existing sites.
Both appeared to be generating headlines that could act as some sort of media validation for their favored campaigns’ talking points. These stories could appear as links or headlines in the campaigns’ advertising, direct mail, and social media. Sometimes these groups even create fake Wordpress sites and Twitter accounts that show up just in time for the election, with backloaded stories that can provide clickthrough headlines.
ON: We definitely saw that, especially the Wild Headline phenomenon. A local Labor-backed site said that Republicans running for school board were “Infiltrating” the election process.
JR: Online readers hardly ever click through to stories; they just scroll through a feed of headlines. Campaigns know this, so placing and generating partisan headlines is very much part of campaigning now. They generate a fake headline, which gives the candidates content for their campaigns.
ON: We're both 501c3’s, so we know that we’re not supposed to be shilling for candidates. I was surprised at how a lot of local nonprofits behaved during the campaign. They were dancing on that line quite a bit; I thought a lot of them went over.
JR: Nonprofits that are doing this are playing a dangerous game, because often their nonprofit status is based upon being educational or independent—and if they’re effectively endorsing or supporting a particular campaign, they are potentially running afoul of the IRS and endangering their nonprofit status.
A lot of these organizations are probably funded in large part by Leftist concerns who are organized enough to plan out a media strategy months in advance so they identify what stories they want to appear when, and proceed accordingly.
ON: Why do the watchdog orgs seem so powerless?
JR: The problem is that with the hyper-partisan nature of American politics, as soon as the watchdog comes out with a judgment, it just becomes political football. Regardless of how diligent they are, as soon as they enter the fray, all the usual political accusations will come flying at them.
ON: Here's a case study: In one of our council races, a labor supporter brought a frivolous ethics complaint against a centrist candidate, purporting that her use of Medium ran afoul of the city’s ethics rules. The Ethics Committee was obliged to spend $10k to hire an S.F. attorney to say what was pretty obvious: that the claim had zero merit. The plaintiff even talked about withdrawing his complaint when he finally got in front of the ethics board, which of course dismissed the claim completely.
But the point is: The complaint was public, it became an issue in the campaign, it cost taxpayers $10k, and by the time it was dismissed, the election was over. It served its interim purpose.
JR: It's very hard for government to be a good watchdog. Ideally, the market would be better, faster, more efficient, But the best would be if somebody would shed light on the issue and let the general public take a look, give them an opportunity to dig below the headline and make a reasoned judgment.
It would be best, of course, if legitimate journalism fulfilled that role. But that takes a journalistic culture that’s objective, that’s driven by facts, and isn’t supported or funded by partisan organizations. It takes publishers that want it. Editors that want it. Reporters that want it. And readers that demand it, instead of just liking the latest hot headline that confirms their biases. We don't have much of any of that.
ON: I read in the Washington Post how nowadays, major newsrooms have given up on the concept of objective journalism, and it’s just partisan activism all the time. They think objectivity is bogus.
JR: In this environment, reporters are not incented to tell stories in an honest way. They are incented to tell a story of Heroes and Villains that generates page views, that embraces the crazies, and lets people get their frustrations out by reading it.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Image by Los Angeles County Museum of Art
