This should be interesting.
NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality (Maine Freedom to Marry, Equality Maine coalition) has issued a press release announcing that they have signed the Maine Code of Fair Campaign Practices and inviting the opposition to do the same.
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Aug 6 2009
Contact: Mark Sullivan, Communications Director, (207)899-1330
NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality Signs Code of Fair Campaign Practices, Calls on Opposition to Endorse Standard of Ethics
"We invite our opponents to join us and deliver the kind of campaign that Maine voters want and deserve."
Portland, Maine (Thursday, August 6, 2009)---Today, the NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign signed a code of campaign ethics and practices based on the 2008 Maine Code of Fair Campaign Practices (21-A M.R.S.A. § 1101(2)) and asked opponents to sign pledge and join NO on 1 in conducting a civil campaign Maine voters have come to expect.
The pledge (see attached) was adapted to suit ballot initiatives and was FAXed to Frank Schubert of the California-based Shubert Flint Public Affairs who opponents have identified as managing their campaign to strip away marriage equality. The 2008 Maine Code of Campaign Practices is routinely signed by candidates running for public office in the state. The letter and pledge was also sent to Marc Mutty, the public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine.
"Maine has a longstanding tradition of campaigns that do not engage in mudslinging, lies, distortions and the politics of division," said Jesse Connolly, Campaign Manager for NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality. "Maine voters expect us to take the high road, avoid poisonous attacks, and make our case based on fact and principle. Today, NO on 1 pledged to abide by that high standard, and we invite our opponents to join us and deliver the kind of campaign that Maine voters want and deserve."
In a June 18th article in the Portland Press Herald, Mr. Mutty, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine, stated that marriage equality opponents have hired Schubert Flint "to run the campaign." Schubert Flint is the same firm that ran the $39 million Prop 8 campaign which overturned marriage equality in California in November 2008.
Connolly's letter to Schubert reads:
"As we embark on the campaign to preserve marriage equality in Maine, it seems both ethical and important that we agree on the terms and tenor of this engagement. I am not sure whether or not there is a similar procedure in your home state of California. But in Maine, our campaigns, while not lacking in rigor or enthusiasm, operate in an atmosphere of mutual respect and in a distortion-free zone. I look forward to seeing you soon on the campaign trail here in Maine."
"I hope that our opponents will join us and sign the pledge," Connolly said. "By agreeing to abide by these standards, we will ensure a campaign in which we can all take pride. Marriage equality in Maine is about our commitment to fairness and justice. And in the end, it's what voters both expect and deserve."
Given that most of the arguments against marriage equality are based on misleading information and downright lies, and given that the opposition has already engaged in deceptive practices to gather its signatures*, it will be interesting to see their response - or lack thereof - and how that will be used.
As I said in an earlier post, Mainers are, by and large, a fair group. They also have pretty finely tuned bullshit filters - many of them being experts in the field.
There is also another thing I wonder about all those signatures that were gathered. Generally, if there is a group gathering signatures to put something on the ballot, I will sign. In fact, the first time I refused to sign was the campaign to repeal the "gay rights" law in 2005. To me, voting on things is the way it should be done, and unless I really strongly oppose something, I am willing to have it put to a vote. That does not mean I'll vote for it, however. So, I wonder if there were people like that who signed the petition, along with those who thought they were signing in support of the law. How many of those signatures represent actual votes to repeal?
We have work to do.
*The link I had appears to no longer work, but there were many reports of signature gatherers telling people that they had two petitions, one in support of marriage equality, and one for repeal, so that people would sign one of them. Thing is, they were the same petition.
ETA: They have responded, and they agree, as long as there are several provisions inserted for their protection. At least, I didn't get that they feel the protections should go both ways. They also had to get in their digs:
We were delighted to see your commitment to "uphold the right of every qualified voter to free and equal participation in the election process." This is quite a change of direction given the extraordinary efforts made by Equality Maine and your allies to prevent Maine voters from having any say on this issue whatsoever during the Legislative session.
I'm not sure what they are talking about here. They had every right to speak - and they exercised that right - at the hearing. During the session itself, it was their side that interrupted with ranting and yelling and had to be hauled off by the police.
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Aug 6 2009
Contact: Mark Sullivan, Communications Director, (207)899-1330
NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality Signs Code of Fair Campaign Practices, Calls on Opposition to Endorse Standard of Ethics
"We invite our opponents to join us and deliver the kind of campaign that Maine voters want and deserve."
Portland, Maine (Thursday, August 6, 2009)---Today, the NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality campaign signed a code of campaign ethics and practices based on the 2008 Maine Code of Fair Campaign Practices (21-A M.R.S.A. § 1101(2)) and asked opponents to sign pledge and join NO on 1 in conducting a civil campaign Maine voters have come to expect.
The pledge (see attached) was adapted to suit ballot initiatives and was FAXed to Frank Schubert of the California-based Shubert Flint Public Affairs who opponents have identified as managing their campaign to strip away marriage equality. The 2008 Maine Code of Campaign Practices is routinely signed by candidates running for public office in the state. The letter and pledge was also sent to Marc Mutty, the public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine.
"Maine has a longstanding tradition of campaigns that do not engage in mudslinging, lies, distortions and the politics of division," said Jesse Connolly, Campaign Manager for NO on 1/Protect Maine Equality. "Maine voters expect us to take the high road, avoid poisonous attacks, and make our case based on fact and principle. Today, NO on 1 pledged to abide by that high standard, and we invite our opponents to join us and deliver the kind of campaign that Maine voters want and deserve."
In a June 18th article in the Portland Press Herald, Mr. Mutty, of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine, stated that marriage equality opponents have hired Schubert Flint "to run the campaign." Schubert Flint is the same firm that ran the $39 million Prop 8 campaign which overturned marriage equality in California in November 2008.
Connolly's letter to Schubert reads:
"As we embark on the campaign to preserve marriage equality in Maine, it seems both ethical and important that we agree on the terms and tenor of this engagement. I am not sure whether or not there is a similar procedure in your home state of California. But in Maine, our campaigns, while not lacking in rigor or enthusiasm, operate in an atmosphere of mutual respect and in a distortion-free zone. I look forward to seeing you soon on the campaign trail here in Maine."
"I hope that our opponents will join us and sign the pledge," Connolly said. "By agreeing to abide by these standards, we will ensure a campaign in which we can all take pride. Marriage equality in Maine is about our commitment to fairness and justice. And in the end, it's what voters both expect and deserve."
Given that most of the arguments against marriage equality are based on misleading information and downright lies, and given that the opposition has already engaged in deceptive practices to gather its signatures*, it will be interesting to see their response - or lack thereof - and how that will be used.
As I said in an earlier post, Mainers are, by and large, a fair group. They also have pretty finely tuned bullshit filters - many of them being experts in the field.
There is also another thing I wonder about all those signatures that were gathered. Generally, if there is a group gathering signatures to put something on the ballot, I will sign. In fact, the first time I refused to sign was the campaign to repeal the "gay rights" law in 2005. To me, voting on things is the way it should be done, and unless I really strongly oppose something, I am willing to have it put to a vote. That does not mean I'll vote for it, however. So, I wonder if there were people like that who signed the petition, along with those who thought they were signing in support of the law. How many of those signatures represent actual votes to repeal?
We have work to do.
*The link I had appears to no longer work, but there were many reports of signature gatherers telling people that they had two petitions, one in support of marriage equality, and one for repeal, so that people would sign one of them. Thing is, they were the same petition.
ETA: They have responded, and they agree, as long as there are several provisions inserted for their protection. At least, I didn't get that they feel the protections should go both ways. They also had to get in their digs:
We were delighted to see your commitment to "uphold the right of every qualified voter to free and equal participation in the election process." This is quite a change of direction given the extraordinary efforts made by Equality Maine and your allies to prevent Maine voters from having any say on this issue whatsoever during the Legislative session.
I'm not sure what they are talking about here. They had every right to speak - and they exercised that right - at the hearing. During the session itself, it was their side that interrupted with ranting and yelling and had to be hauled off by the police.