http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?opti...=1784&Itemid=26

the White House announced that it intends to nominate Caroline Hunter to a seat on the Election Assistance Commission. If confirmed, she will replace Chairman Paul DeGregorio, whose current term had formally expired but had continued to serve.

The biography of Ms. Hunter from the White House press release appears below:

The President intends to nominate Caroline C. Hunter, of Florida, to be Commissioner of the Election Assistance Commission, for a four year term. Ms. Hunter currently serves as Deputy Director of the Office of Public Liaison at the White House. Prior to this, she served as Executive Officer of the Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman at the Department of Homeland Security. Earlier in her career, she served as Deputy Counsel of the Republican National Committee. Ms. Hunter received her bachelor's degree from Pennsylvania State University and her JD from the University of Memphis.

Hunter's appointment does not fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Vice-Chair Ray Martinez; presumably that information will be forthcoming as nominations of this type usually move in bi-partisan pairs.

http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article?id=242144

Friday, September 15

A Worrisome Nominee to the EAC
The White House has announced its intended nominee for the Republican slot on the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) being vacated by departing Chairman Paul DeGregorio. The prospective commissioner is Caroline C. Hunter, who is currently Deputy Director of the Office of Public Liaison at the White House. The press release announcing this intended nomination describes Ms. Hunter as follows:

Ms. Hunter currently serves as Deputy Director of the Office of Public Liaison at the White House. Prior to this, she served as Executive Officer of the Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman at the Department of Homeland Security. Earlier in her career, she served as Deputy Counsel of the Republican National Committee. Ms. Hunter received her bachelor's degree from Pennsylvania State University and her JD from the University of Memphis.

Under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), the EAC consists of four commissioners, two of whom are Democrats and two of whom are Republicans. Ms. Hunter would be appointed for a four-year term as one of the two Republican appointees.

What's troubling about this announcement, at first blush, is that it's not clear that Ms. Hunter possesses the qualifications for the job. All of the prior EAC commissioners, Democrats and Republicans alike, have been people with substantial relevant experience. Republican Commissioners Donetta Davidson and Paul DeGregorio, for example, were previously election officials at the state and local level for years. The EAC's current executive director, Tom Wilkey, is also someone with many years experience in election administration. Former EAC Vice-Chair Ray Martinez practiced administrative law -- clearly relevant experience for someone helping to get a new administrative agency started -- and had worked with state elected officials as Deputy Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs. Current Democratic Commissioner Gracia Hillman has a long history of promoting voting rights, including work with the League of Women Voters and the National Coalition on Black Voter Participation.

I don't know Ms. Hunter personally and have never heard of her before. My attempts to find out information about her through the internet have yielded nothing of much relevance (though I did find this letter which she wrote on behalf of the RNC in 2003, telling TV stations to stop running an DNC advertisement critical of the President). It is certainly possible that there is something of which I'm not aware -- something not listed in the bio released by the White House -- that qualifies her for the job. But if not, there's reason to be concerned that this is someone who's being appointed not for her qualifications, but rather to look out for the political interests of the party to which she belongs.

It would be most unfortunate if this turned out to be the case. That is especially true, since this is a delicate period in the development of the EAC given the recent spat over Arizona's voter registration requirements, which I've discussed here and here. This dispute broke the EAC's tradition, up to that point, of operating by bipartisan consensus. The worry is that the EAC will become an agency in which the commissioners view their roles as protecting the interests of their parties, rather than promoting a better functioning election system as HAVA originally promised. That would likely lead to stalemates along party lines, which would effectively paralyze the EAC and destroy its ability to serve as an effective instrument for election reform.

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/blogs/tokaji/2006...nee-to-eac.html

The DNC has started running a blunt new television ad, which accuses George Bush of misleading the nation in his State of the Union address. The RNC wants it off the air. Here's the letter their lawyer has written to stations in Madison, WI, where the ad is running first (courtesy of a DNC email):

Dear Station Manager:

It has come to our attention that your station will begin airing false and misleading advertisements on July 21, 2003, paid for by the Democratic National Committee. The advertisement in question misrepresents President George W. Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address. The advertisement states that President Bush said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In fact, President Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." By selectively quoting President Bush, the advertisement is deliberately false and misleading. Furthermore, the British government continues to stand by its intelligence and asserts that it believes the intelligence is genuine.

The Democratic National Committee certainly has a legitimate First Amendment right to participate in political debate, but it has no right to willfully spread false information in a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people. These advertisements will not be run by legally qualified candidates; therefore, your station is under no legal obligation to air them. On the contrary, as an FCC licensee you have the responsibility to exercise independent editorial judgment to not only oversee and protect the American marketplace of ideas, essential for the health of our democracy, but also to avoid deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. Such obligations must be taken seriously.

This letter puts you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading; therefore, you are obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement.

Respectfully,

Caroline C. Hunter
Counsel

Of course, the ad nowhere near approaches the depths of evil to which GOP campaigns have gone. Laughingly, the letter points out that the deliberate misrepresentation of facts hurts democracy. The DNC's response?

We agree. And that's why we are demanding an independent investigation of President Bush, and why we want to run this hard-hitting ad in as many places as we can.

Way to go. The letter is a dirty threat that the DNC - and television stations - have nothing to worry about. Political speech is considered the highest form of speech under the First Amendment.

The DNC says it will run the ad nationally using money it raises via the internet. Now what it needs to do it rip a page from Howard Deans' playbook: make it easy and exciting to contribute. In addition to traditional methods of fudnraising, it needs to reach out to bloggers, spread the word formally, and turn it into a telethon. Terry McAuliffe has smelled the scent already, with the fledgling ePatriots program. Now he has to take to the chase.

http://jusiper.blogspot.com/2003/07/dnc-ha...-blunt-new.html

Tuesday | July 22, 2003

RNC overacts to "Bush lied" DNC ad

You remember the ad, we criticized it last week. (We're a tough crowd around these parts.)

Well, the DNC scrounged up enough change under the couch cushion to air it in Madison, WI.

Now, rather than let the DNC run the ad in one of the most liberal corners of the country, where it could do the least amount of damage, the RNC has overreacted. In a fit of unfathomable pique, the RNC's attack-dog lawyer sent the following letter to Madison station managers:

Dear Station Manager:

It has come to our attention that your station will begin airing false and misleading advertisements on July 21, 2003, paid for by the Democratic National Committee. The advertisement in question misrepresents President George W. Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address. The advertisement states that President Bush said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In fact, President Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." By selectively quoting President Bush, the advertisement is deliberately false and misleading. Furthermore, the British government continues to stand by its intelligence and asserts that it believes the intelligence is genuine.

The Democratic National Committee certainly has a legitimate First Amendment right to participate in political debate, but it has no right to willfully spread false information in a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people. These advertisements will not be run by legally qualified candidates; therefore, your station is under no legal obligation to air them. On the contrary, as an FCC licensee you have the responsibility to exercise independent editorial judgment to not only oversee and protect the American marketplace of ideas, essential for the health of our democracy, but also to avoid deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. Such obligations must be taken seriously.

This letter puts you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading; therefore, you are obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement.

Respectfully,

Caroline C. Hunter
Counsel

Except, of course, that the ad is true. Every word of it. And by raising a stink, they will continue driving the story when it may have otherwise faded into quiet oblivion. Posted July 22, 2003 12:05 AM

http://www.dailykos.net/archives/003480.html