Sunday, May 13, 2007 , Updated 9:04 a.m., May 14, 2007
UPDATED: Did Dallas voters get a “mystery call” in an effort to derail Oakley, Wells and Hill?
DALLAS — Over on Dallas.org, Allen Gwinn reports that many voters got an unidentified recorded call yesterday that contained phrases like:
"Ed Oakley has a gay agenda for Dallas..."
and
"...it is time to elect a real conservative as Mayor"
Such a call would be a clear violation of Texas Ethics Commission rules. Allen is seeking a copy of the audio if anyone has it on an answering machine. We'd love to run it too. Also, if you got such a call, let us know in the comments.
Methinks the runoff will be far more interesting than the general election...
UPDATE: Allen Gwinn won the war of swag and got the MP3 of the call.
The script was:
"Today is election day. Please listen to this important message before voting. Ed Oakley has a radical gay agenda for Dallas. Max Wells wants to raise your taxes, and the FBI is investigating Don Hill. Dallas needs strong, conservative leadership. Not Oakley, not Wells, not Hill."
And for Matt (in comments below) and others who want to know more about advertising rules, Gwinn provides a link to the TEC's brochure on advertising.
|
Email
|
Print
|
15 Comments
|
Contribute
|
-
»Dallas Mayor Tom Leppert discreetly puts Preston Hollow home on the market
-
»Former Dallas mayoral candidate Jennifer Gale found dead near UT campus in Austin
-
»UPDATED: Dallas Observer muckraker raises ethics question over fund-raising activities of DART Board chair Lynn Flint Shaw
-
»An open letter to Tom Leppert
-
»Dallas City Council finally in place after runoff election
|
an event
|
a restaurant
|
|
a garage sale
|
a drink special
|
|
a movie showtime
|
local music
|
a job
|
a house
|
|
a deal
|
a pet
|
Matt Anderson, says:
Which Texas Ethics Commission rule does this violate? That website is a nightmare to navigate. Do the rules apply to everyone, or just to campaigns?
I've looked to see if this actually violated the Texas Election Code, and the closest section I see is "§ 255.001. REQUIRED DISCLOSURE ON POLITICAL ADVERTISING" -- but these phone calls aren't "political advertising" by the Code definition.
I'm not defending it -- it's reprehensible -- but I am curious whether it's actually illegal, either for a campaign or an individual.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Chad Jones, says:
I hope I'm not the only one confused about the idea of a "gay agenda." I've heard this phrase used in other places--nationally, sociologically, and always vaguely. I'm just not understanding it. What is included in a gay agenda? What are goals of a gay agenda?
Let's say someone is giving a PowerPoint presentation on their newly-concocted gay agenda. What do the first slides talk about?* <br> <br> <br> *of course, I don't know what <em>any</em> of the slides would be about, but you get what I'm asking: "where do you even start?"
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
WhitneyTM, says:
From Wikipedia:
"The homosexual agenda (or the gay agenda) is a term coined by some social conservatives in the United States to describe the goal of increasing LGBT acceptance through public policies, media exposure, and cultural change. The term is most often employed by social conservatives in debates over LGBT rights in the United States. Some believe that this agenda is a secret one. The term is offensive to many, particularly those who view the goals of the movement to be equal rights. Sometimes those who would be offended by a serious reference to this term still use it satirically or sarcastically.
James Dobson, director of Focus on the Family, a Christian non-profit organization based in the United States, and a social Christian conservative commentator in American popular media, describes the homosexual agenda as follows: 'Those goals include universal acceptance of the gay lifestyle, discrediting of scriptures that condemn homosexuality, muzzling of the clergy and Christian media, granting of special privileges and rights in the law, overturning laws prohibiting pedophilia, indoctrinating children and future generations through public education, and securing all the legal benefits of marriage for any two or more people who claim to have homosexual tendencies...'"
Anonymous
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
James Nunn, says:
Of course, Betty Bowers says it best ...
http://www.bettybowers.com/homoagenda...
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Mike Orren, says:
James, that may be the funniest thing I've read all month. Well played.
Staff
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Sanders Kaufman, says:
As a Conservative Republican I seriously get ticked when folks refer to the anti-gay agenda as "conservative".
Political conservatism is all about smaller, less intrusive government. Social conservatism is all about minding your own business and leaving others to mind theirs.
That makes the whole suite of laws and religious doctrines that were setup to attack gays as definitively NOT conservative.
I know that a lot of anti-gay people SAY they are conservative - but for God's sake, don't take them at their word of honor on this.
On that note - if you're a gay person in Plano and you feel a little under-represented, you can contact (or join) the new Stonewall Democrats of Collin County. (I setup their web page at "http://www.stonewalldemscollin.org".)
Plano is a very red county, but the Stonewall Dems are adding a lot of blue.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
CastleHills, says:
Sanders,
I'm encouraged, but confused, by your post. I think the only conservatives these days who agree with you call themselves "Libertarians." The rest want to tell everyone how to live and what to do with their bodies...never mind how much that conflicts with the ideals of "small government" and "getting govt out of people's lives."
If the Bushies were true conservatives, they probably would not be so hated.
Anonymous
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Matt Anderson, says:
Mike -- I appreciate your pointer to TEC's brochure. I did look at that -- and this call isn't "Political Advertising" by that definition. It's not a written communication, and it's not broadcast on radio or TV. I've yet to see anything that indicates that a telephone message like that violates either TEC or the election code.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Mike Orren, says:
Matt, I looked around and was coming to the same conclusion you were, so I asked <a href="http://dallas.org">Allen Gwinn</a>. His reply is below:
<hr>
Right... there are several things at work here. From a State standpoint, have him look at this:
http://www.puc.state.tx.us/rules/subr...
and then have him look at this... see what he thinks:
http://www.ethics.state.tx.us/statute...
(17) "Campaign communication" means a written or oral communication relating to a campaign for nomination or election to public office or office of a political party or to a campaign on a measure.
*
§ 255.004. True Source of Communication
*
(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election, the person enters into a contract or other agreement to print, publish, or broadcast political advertising that purports to emanate from a source other than its true source.
(b) A person commits an offense if, with intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election, the person knowingly represents in a campaign communication that the communication emanates from a source other than its true source.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
*
§ 255.005. Misrepresentation of Identity
*
(a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election, the person misrepresents the person’s identity or, if acting or purporting to act as an agent, misrepresents the identity of the agent’s principal, in political advertising or a campaign communication.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
Staff
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Matt Anderson, says:
Very good; I'm glad to learn something. I don't think the TEC things apply, since there's evidently no misrepresentation as to the identity or source of the communication (rather, there's none at all). But the PUC ADAD code looks right on the money. Doesn't appear to have much teeth, though -- for a one day violation, looks like they may be up for a $1000 fine.
Now, if the numbers were dialed manually before starting the recording....
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Sanders Kaufman, says:
CastleHills - yeah, that's why I think it's such a bad idea to take the spend-crazy, government expansionists, religious zealots, bigots and gun-nuts at their word of honor.
Sure, they call themselves conservative - but they're nuts. So taking your political understandings from their self-contradictory political claims is a sure-fire way to be wrong.
They're not conservative - but they like that you think so.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
allengwinn, says:
I sort of think that the exposure of "who did it" will likely be more valuable to Oakley, Hill and Wells, than will be the punishment.
Anonymous
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Matt Anderson, says:
If it turns out it was Leppert, I'm sure you're right. If it was one of the also-rans, or some third-party crank group, I don't think this will matter at all in the end.
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
acaguldi, says:
The negative phone message has returned. I found one on my answering machine today and angrily deleted, then wished I had kept it to report. The message asked if I was concerned about crime, pornography and homosexuality and went downhill from there. It specifically mentioned Ed Oakley and the upcoming runoff, so I assumed it is from Tom Leppert, but I do not know for sure. Whoever is producing such a sleazy ad campaign has no place in city government. I hope to find out who did it.
Anonymous
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal
Susan Thornton, says:
The phone message I received didn't mention a "gay agenda," but did diss Oakley with the DMN outing and end with an endorsement for "Christian" Tom L. Message also included the web address www.txvote.com. That goes straight to the Heritage Alliance PAC. The Heritage Alliance, amongst other things, will send you a daily email reminder to pray for key leaders. Today it's Robert Gates and Elizabeth Jones...
Verified
2 years, 6 months agoLink to this comment | Suggest removal