Government Propaganda

I guess the state election law isn't as clear as Attorney General Troy King would have us think. At least not the part that prohibits state officials from trying to influence the political activity of Alabamians.

 

In the trial of Nancy Worley, King's office sought and obtained an indictment against Worley saying she had violated that law. The law states:

Any person who attempts to use his or her official authority or position for the purpose of influencing the vote or political action of any person shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a Class C felony.

King's argument against Worley is that she solicited her employees to support her campaign by asking them to place a bumper sticker on their car, or by putting a sign in their yard, or by even donating money. She obviously was asking them to vote for her in her re-election bid. King said this activity violates the law quote above. I agree with him.

 

However, King issued an opinion earlier this year to Governor Riley saying it was okay for a Governor Riley to ask for the people's support for the Capital Improvement Trust Fund amendment that was on the ballot June 5.  The conclusion of the opinion states:

The Governor is not prohibited by subsections 17-1-7(b) and 17-1-7(c) of the Code or by 17-17-4 or 17-17-5, as recodified, from educating the voters of this state on issues of public importance and from using public funds to promote the passage of a proposed constitutional amendment to be submitted to the voters at a referendum election when the Governor determines that a public service is served by that expenditure .

I know the point King was apparently trying to make. He was distinguishing situations like the amendment election from candidate elections, like Worley's, by saying that if the amendment does not something to promote the public good, then it's okay for a publc official to speak in favor of the amendment and encourage others to vote for it, even if the official uses public funds to spread the message.

 

It turns out that the permissibility of public officials to use public funds to support a proposed amendment has been discussed before. Then Attorney General Bill Pryor in 2003 wrote an opinion to then-state Superintendent of Education Ed Richardson and Representative Jim Carns saying it was okay for them use public funds to promote Governor Riley's tax and accountabilty package (Amendment 1) that was on the ballot that year.

 

Under the first amendment, I have no problems with public officials speaking in favor of amendment on their own time or without using state funds to promote their position. However, King's opinion has two problems. First, it ignores the plain language of the law. The law doesn't provide any exceptions. The law doesn't say "hey, this really only applies in candidate elections, because we don't want public officials using taxpayer money for candidate advertising, but an amendment is really different from a candidate so use taxpayer money to your heart's content to promote that!"

 

Second, I do not think it's good public policy for the governor or legislators - or other public officials - to craft some policy or program and then use taxpayer money to convince the taxpayers to support it.  The men and women who staff our government as elected officials or as administrators should not be in the business of convincing us with our tax money to support what they want to do.  That type of activity really falls into the arena of government propaganda, no matter how well-intentioned it is.

 

And here's the kicker:  since every proposed constitutional amendment is designed to place a policy option or choice before the voters, then every amendment involves a public interest. And since we do not have the power of initiative in Alabama, these amendments come from elected officials who were defining a solution to a perceived problem. So, they can easily claim that in any constitutional amendment election, they should have the right to spend public dollars to convince you and me to support their plans.

 

How many Alabamians would have wanted legislators using their taxpayer dollars to promote the amendment that removed language that prohibited interracial marriage? How many of those same Alabamians would want their tax dollars supporting an amendment to recognize gay marriages?

 

Call me a contrarian, but I just don't think that government officials should be using my own tax dollars to convince me to support their ideas and vote accordingly.