EXCLUSIVE KVNU Interview: PCE Worker says cash-for-votes program was the brainchild of PCE, to be funded by PCE
You may have seen this email this past week. It cause quite a stir in Utah. It offered volunteers $10 for each person roped into voting for Utah’s Voucher Program.
PCE quickly responded, dismissing the program as the foolhardy judgment of an overzealous volunteer:
“We are looking for staffing in the next month to help us out in the community, but it is not what was stated in that e-mail,” said Leah Barker, spokeswoman for PCE. “Some groups, they just want to help, but this was really misrepresenting what we are looking for.”
The retraction stated that the e-mail “was simply incorrect and misrepresents the Free Capitalist Project’s grass-roots efforts. Neither Parents for Choice in Education nor the Free Capitalist Project will ever provide incentives that appear to pay people to vote.”
Interesting. PCE will never “provide incentives that appear to pay people to vote”.
I just got off the phone with Brandon Dupuis, the author of the email. He says the cash for votes program was not his brainchild, but that of PCE. He says PCE contacted him with the program and that the cash for the votes was to be provided by PCE. Though he wouldn’t tell us who his contact for the progam is at PCE, Dupuis maintains that the PCE votes for cash program is both legal and ethical.
I have posted an interview that will be broadcast Monday night on KVNU’s For the People.
What do you think?
This interview is Copyright 2007 by KVNU, Cache Valley Radio Group & Sun Valley Radio. All rights reserved. The interview may not be rebroadcast, transcribed or reproduced without permission (in other words, if you’re another media outlet, you need to contact me first before you can use it).
Leave a Reply
Oct 13th 2007 • 11:10
by Brandon Dupuis
I take exception to the continued use of phrases such as have been used in the introduction on this page such as “cash for votes program”, “the cash for the votes” or “votes for cash program”. The fact of the matter is, as I clearly stated in the interview, the money was to be paid to campaign workers, NOT voters. While it may be claimed that these phrases are literally correct, since the campaign workers would be paid based on whether or not the voters on their list (who would have already committed to voting for Ref. 1) actually voted (which is publicly available info), phrases such as these are clearly intended to imply that money would be paid to the voters, which is patently false. I challenge anyone to provide a reasoned argument as to how such a program, as I’ve described, is either illegal or unethical. Tom certainly couldn’t do it, nor did he even try. He seemed content with innuendo and the appearance of impropriety. Politics is so often about appearance, and we obviously don’t want to give people the wrong idea, but in the end, this is more about the appearance of a problem, rather than the actual existence of one.
Oct 13th 2007 • 13:10
by Voice of Utah
Brandon, I would refer you to Utah Code Ann. Section 20A-1-601(1)(a)(iv), which states that it is unlawful to pay any person “because a voter voted or refrained from voting for any particular person, or went to the polls…” As the e-mail makes clear, and as I believe you acknowledge, these people were only going to get paid “because a voter…went to the polls”. If you read the statute, its language is quite clear: paying someone because a specific person went to the polls — it does not have to be the individual receiving the money — is illegal.
Oct 13th 2007 • 15:10
by Bradley Ross
Good catch, VoU. I’m not comfortable with what PCE was trying to do, even if it was legal. In the same way, I’m not in favor of paying people per-signature to collect names to get items on the ballot in a referendum. Was this done to get this item on the ballot? If so, can someone explain to me why one is ethically superior to the other?
Oct 13th 2007 • 18:10
by Jasonthe
Brandon,
A semantics argument does nothing to divert attention from the lack of ethics such a campaign, even if you WERE paying those who were urging people to vote, and not voters themselves.
You people should be ashamed of yourselves. I know I am.
Oct 13th 2007 • 18:10
by Davis Didjeridu
Bradley, I can assure you that no one at Utahns for Public Schools paid anyone on a per-signature basis during the petition drive.
Oct 13th 2007 • 18:10
by Nate Randall
Looks like the Utah Amicus was right about their “BOGUS” retraction.
Oct 13th 2007 • 21:10
by Bradley Ross
DD, if that is true, I’m glad to hear it. Do you have first-hand knowledge that that is the case? I only ask because it is apparently quite common to pay for signatures in a referendum petition. From a report from the Initiative and Referendum Institute (University of Southern California) by Andrew Gloger, we read, “It is a familiar sight in the weeks leading up to a ballot initiative deadline — people at grocery stores and shopping malls toting clipboards in search of signatures from registered voters to place petitions on the ballot. What some voters may not know is that these petition circulators are often paid for each signature they collect — sometimes up to $10 per signature.”
Gloger goes on to explain some of the court battles that have been fought over the legality of the practice as states have tried to outlaw it. Really, I can’t see a practical difference between pay-per-signature and paying people to get out the vote. Both leave a bad taste in my mouth, but the former is an apparently common practice.
Oct 13th 2007 • 21:10
by Tyson
Either way, I don’t sign a petition or agree to vote one way or the other if I have never heard of what they are petitioning about.
Oct 14th 2007 • 10:10
by Frank Staheli
These inane acts by PCE are the reason I think someone in the organization is working toward DEFEATING vouchers.
Oct 14th 2007 • 20:10
by Nate Randall
Brandon, what is unethical is the fact that your stupervisors (no misspelling) told the world that you came up with this idea on your own.
Are you all truly so blind that you cannot see past your nose?
If it was okay why did they throw you under the bus?
Oct 15th 2007 • 00:10
by Davis Didjeridu
Bradley–yes I do have first hand knowledge that no one was paid on a per-signature basis. There were many discussions about hiring on that basis, but it turned out it was not needed so UTPS decided against that. I do not doubt at all that it is common to do so, but it was not done in this case. It was an entirely grass-roots effort, with some consultants working on a contract basis only.