Seems like Ken Hawkins (NH Senate Candidate, D-9 ) is getting a little pushy lately, and is working from the dark side of campaigning.
Residents of Bedford, along with current Senator Ray White (read his letter here), have complained that Hawkins’ campaign is conducting negative “push polling” – against current Senator Andy Sanborn – and it’s not entirely clear if it is being done on the up-and-up.
From WikiPedia:
A push poll is an interactive marketing technique, most commonly employed during political campaigning, in which an individual or organization attempts to influence or alter the view of respondents under the guise of conducting a poll.
In a push poll, large numbers of respondents are contacted, and little or no effort is made to collect and analyze response data. Instead, the push poll is a form of telemarketing-based propaganda and rumor mongering, masquerading as a poll. Push polls may rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on an opponent. They are generally viewed as a form of negative campaigning. This tactic is commonly considered to undermine the democratic process.
New Hampshire RSA 664:2, XVII specifically, and legally, defines “push-polling” as:
(a) Calling voters on behalf of, in support of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office by telephone; and
(b) Asking questions related to opposing candidates for public office which state, imply, or convey information about the candidates character, status, or political stance or record; and
(c) Conducting such calling in a manner which is likely to be construed by the voter to be a survey or poll to gather statistical data for entities or organizations which are acting independent of any particular political party, candidate, or interest group.
While technically legal in New Hampshire (but a sign of a bad campaign), there are some requirements in RSA 664:16-a that must be met, in order to avoid breaking the law:
I. Any person who engages in push-polling, as defined in RSA 664:2, XVII, shall inform any person contacted that the telephone call is being made on behalf of, in support of, or in opposition to a particular candidate for public office, identify that candidate by name, and provide a telephone number from where the push-polling is conducted.
II. Any person or entity who violates paragraph I shall be subject to penalty under RSA 664:21, V and VI.
According to one resident, the caller mentioned both Hawkins’ and Sanborn’s names, but it is unclear whether they did it in the manner described above, and did not provide the phone number from where the push-polling was conducted. When asked who was making the calls, the response was “National Research” (which, by the way, would be very expensive for a State Senate campaign to hire), but the caller-ID number did not match up with that declaration.
A resident told the pusher that she wasn’t too happy with the questions and negative, personal statements being made about opposing candidate Andy Sanborn (disclosure: The Granite Grok will be endorsing Sanborn, forthcoming).
Senator Ray White mentioned the fact that Hawkins’ campaign followed-up the poll with a “vicious, twisted and inaccurate mailing“, saying that “Politics is supposed to be about ideas and solutions, not personal character assassination attempts.” Senator White also asks the question which, obviously, comes to mind when you see ridiculous (and desperate) stunts like this being pulled: “what kind of representation Andy’s primary opponent would provide for our totally redrawn district if he is going to conduct himself that way to be elected.”
What kind, indeed. New Hampshire is better than this type of behavior – more the likes of a certain Chicago politician, no?