Noodle 9/11

[mrmooky]

Stop him! He's encouraging citizens to vote!

Moore in 'noodles for votes' row


Republicans are calling for film-maker Michael Moore to be prosecuted for offering prizes of noodles and underwear to encourage voting.

The Michigan Republican Party accuses the director of bribery on his speaking tour to encourage students to vote.

Although Moore attacked President George Bush in his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, his speeches do not tell people what party to vote for.

But Republicans still believe he is breaking Michigan election rules.

"We want everyone to participate in this year's election, but not because they were bribed or coerced by the likes of Michael Moore," said Greg McNeilly, executive director of the state's Republican Party.

Noodles

During Moore's 60-city tour of college campuses and arenas he has been getting habitual non-voters on stage to pledge they will vote in the next election.

In exchange for promising to vote they receive gifts of potato crisps and noodles, among other small items.

The Michigan Republican Party has asked prosecutors to investigate, accusing Moore of violating a law which prohibits a person from contracting with another for something of value in exchange for agreeing to vote.

Moore, who was born in Michigan, has so far visited three universities in the state.

Rapper P Diddy is also doing the circuit at the moment persuading young and ethnic minority voters to turn out at the election.

His Citizen Change movement does not favour one party over another but he wants those who usually shun elections to go to the polls.

A couple of questions: is it ethical to offer incentives like noodles and underwear to encourage people to vote, given that they can vote however they want to? Is it still ethical if you specifically target demographics likely to support a particular candidate?

[Serious Paul]

No.

[3278]

A couple of questions: is it ethical to offer incentives like noodles and underwear to encourage people to vote, given that they can vote however they want to?

I believe it is ethical, provided no influence on their voting choices is made. Of course, that's fairly unlikely, but nevertheless...

It is, no matter how ethical it might be, clearly illegal, before anyone flips out on the people asking that Moore be prosecuted for this. He broke the law, and did so with the clear intent of influencing the outcome of the election. Illegal, although perhaps not in any way wrong.

Is it still ethical if you specifically target demographics likely to support a particular candidate?

Man, I just don't know. Ethics are muddy; ask again later.

[Johnny the Bull]

Lovely thing about precedent is that he'll be able to cite cases similar to his where people got off and avoid punishment.

[MissTeja]

My thing is that from being on college campuses in this state for the last several years, I'm quite sure that the majority of people my age around here are liberal (though I'm not sure what percentage or anything).

Michael Moore, my personal convictions aside, has enough reputability amongst young voters that all he has to do is speak and people will listen. Even if they don't like him, if he were to come to a college campus, there'd be a line outside the door waiting to hear him speak. So, why not use that to your advantage? Promote voting. Why risk such an opportunity to use your celebrity status for a good cause over noodles and underwear??

Just seems stupid. But then again, that fits my mold of him, so I guess I'm not too surprised. Oops. Couldn't keep personal opinion out. Ah well.

[crone]

It's just a gimmick. If he is allowed to speak to predomoinantly liberal groups, encouraging them to vote, then this is not really anything different. It's a bit far-fetched to call it bribery, IMO. Is handing out buttons and stickers bribery? Did he take names? Did anyone sign anything? It's just a bit of silliness to engage people's interest.

[Crazy Elf]

So how is what Moore's doing any different from running an election add on TV?

[lorg]

I don't see the problem. If I understood it he gets people up on stage infront of an audience and they say they'll vote and he gives them some noodles, clothing etc. Nothing really valuable. They in turn doesn't really have to vote, just say they will. There is no contract or anything between them. Moore can't check later if they actually did vote and if they didn't ask for his noodles back.

I don't see this as being any different then alot of other political type rallies and here Moore doesn't even tell them what to vote for does he? Even thou it is probably crystal clear that he doesn't want them to vote Bush. For example, REM and Bruce Springsteen etc give a "free" concert to get people to vote. A concert with these groups costs what? Checking, REM is playing in Stockholm in Januari '05 and a ticket cost 65 bucks. Lets say for sake that the other cost about the same. So basically you are "bribed" with a concert ticket if you should use their logic.

As Crazy Elf said I don't think this is any different then any kind of political add on TV or other political rally. You get something for nothing but your attendence, sure you might say you'll vote but there is really no binding agreement.

[Marius]

For example, REM and Bruce Springsteen etc give a "free" concert to get people to vote.... So basically you are "bribed" with a concert ticket if you should use their logic.

Yeah, I've been going over this with lawyers now for a while, and they're all pretty baffled as to how that's legal.

. . . sure you might say you'll vote but there is really no binding agreement.

But there is an agreement, which is all the law requires. The lack of a penalty if you break your agreement is pretty immaterial. Reasonably, if you tell Moore you're going to vote, he gives you some undewear, and you don't, he would be legally entitled to getting his underwear back.

[WillyGilligan]

Yeah, I've been going over this with lawyers now for a while, and they're all pretty baffled as to how that's legal.

It's probably just not been challenged. "No cop, no stop" and all.

[lorg]

But there is an agreement, which is all the law requires. The lack of a penalty if you break your agreement is pretty immaterial. Reasonably, if you tell Moore you're going to vote, he gives you some undewear, and you don't, he would be legally entitled to getting his underwear back.

Correct there might be a verbal agreement between the two parties, but not one that Moore could ever challenge since he won't know how the person that got the noodles and underwear voted. Hench he can't know if it has been broken.

Don't most parties hand out stickers, signs, pins, buttons etc isn't that then to a form of bribery and wrong?

[Marius]

Don't most parties hand out stickers, signs, pins, buttons etc isn't that then to a form of bribery and wrong?

Nope. For one thing, everyone gets one. There's no quid pro quo. For another, those things aren't valuable. You can't eat them, or trade them for anything, and they've only got value for wearing if you'd already decided you want to vote for someone.

[lorg]

And a pack of noodles and some undies cost a small fortune in comparrison? PLEASE!

[Marius]

Uh, yeah. By a factor of nearly infinite proportions, even a small amount of value is worth more than something worth nearly nothing.

[lorg]

What kind of super expensive noodles do you eat? I'd say I t-shirt with "vote X" cost more then a pack of noodles. Here you can get a pack of instant noodles for about 30 cents. A value like that is hardly even worthy calling a bribe. Doesn't it have to be of atleast some significant size or value before it qualifies. Perhaps you can bribe third world people or bums with a pack of noodles but nobody else.

That one number is nearly infinitely larger by proportions to the other is irrelevant when the sums are of a very small nature such in this case. Not to mention that a 30 cent pack of noodles compared to a sticker or button at a few cents costs each is hardly nearly infinitely larger by proportions.

Not to mention that these where students where they not? They do freakin' anything for a free meal without hesitation.

[WillyGilligan]

Not to mention that these where students where they not? They do freakin' anything for a free meal without hesitation.

Would't this automatically increase the value of food versus a sticker or t-shirt?

[Anguirel]

Not to mention that these where students where they not? They do freakin' anything for a free meal without hesitation.

Would't this automatically increase the value of food versus a sticker or t-shirt?

They also do nearly anything for stickers and t-shirts. I should know, I used to throw out free t-shirts during college hockey games and the students there would do the most fucked up shit to get one. And don't get me started on stickers...

[3278]

Does this not clearly indicate, then, that stickers and t-shirts in exchange for votes would be illegal? Of course, since no one gives sticker and t-shirts in exchange for votes, the point is moot: the stickers and t-shirts are simply given, not given solely on the condition that you agree to vote.

I don't think Moore deserves to be prosecuted for this. I think someone ought to let him know what he was doing was illegal, and that if he does it again, he will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I think his intent, on the face of things, was good: get people to vote. His underlying intent - get people he knows are more likely to vote for the candidate he likes - was underhanded; that seems clear, and I note no one is objecting to that.

The Republicans, however, are just playing sour grapes with the prosecutors. They're hurt that someone did something that'll play badly for them. However, since their motivations are so transparent, this is a public relations battle they cannot win, and public opinion is where races are won and lost, not in courtrooms. [Usually, anyway.]

What the Republicans should have done is approached Moore publicly, noted that his actions were illegal, and then played off his response. If he says, "Sorry! Didn't know it was illegal!" then you let it drop, and if he does it again, use it to hammer him. If he says, "I don't give a crap! It's right!" then you can...well, you /could/ go to the prosecutor, but you're still going to lose the PR battle. What you need to do is use his response to cast him - and through him, your opponents - in a negative light, showing that they're so terrified of losing that they'll stoop to underhanded, illegal tactics to win. The publicity from this may cause the prosecutors to take action on their own, which works for you since you didn't request it.

[Daki]

Giving away something (doesn't have to be specific) is intended to be a form of marketing. Give something away, and more people will show up because, well, it's free. I don't think anyone who shows up and gets something free is going to be swayed when it comes to the vote. Course, there may be someone who says, "Hey, I got free underwear... I'm going to vote for Kerry instead."

[Johnny the Bull]

For example, REM and Bruce Springsteen etc give a "free" concert to get people to vote.... So basically you are "bribed" with a concert ticket if you should use their logic.

Yeah, I've been going over this with lawyers now for a while, and they're all pretty baffled as to how that's legal.

. . . sure you might say you'll vote but there is really no binding agreement.

But there is an agreement, which is all the law requires. The lack of a penalty if you break your agreement is pretty immaterial. Reasonably, if you tell Moore you're going to vote, he gives you some undewear, and you don't, he would be legally entitled to getting his underwear back.

For there to be a valid contract there has to be an intention to create legal relations. The only time that's not required is when the agreement is signed under deed.

[Rev]

What if they gave you a free shirt at an event where in order to attend you were required to sign a pledge of support or loyalty to the candidate?

Personally I am quite sure that relatively useless items like signs, buttons, stickers, and even hats or tshirts are protected as free speech. Primarily the items are intended to proclaim a political message. Food is just for use, getting closer toward giving cash. However as long as he sticks to nearly valueless items he isn't really paying people to vote, but entertaining them. Thus this should also be protected as political speech. It is part of his performance.

[Serious Paul]

I say none of it is ethical, period. That by no means it is niether common practice or accepted by society at large.

[3278]

For there to be a valid contract there has to be an intention to create legal relations. The only time that's not required is when the agreement is signed under deed.

Is a bribe ever a valid legal contract?

[mrmooky]

Okay, here's the problem I have with the whole situation:

If the Democratic Party were to run on a policy platform of giving everyone a free packet of noodles and some underwear, it would be seen as legitimate and acceptable. But if Michael Moore offers the same inducements for people to vote (and unlike the Democrats, he's not asking them to vote for a particular candidate), it's seen as highly questionable at best. The difference? Moore is spending his own money to entice voters, and the Democratic Party would be pledging your tax dollars towards the same end.

Something doesn't make sense here.

[3278]

Absolutely. On the surface, it would appear that it should be both legal and moral to give people just about anything in exchange for an agreement - casual or legal - to simply show up and vote. The problem is, doing so in areas with certain demographics - like college and high school campuses - allows people to effectively pay for votes for the candidate they choose. That's wrong, and that's why it's illegal.

I'm all about encouraging people to vote. But obviously, we have to remove all the incentives to manipulation we can; this is one.

For what it's worth, nearly none of the prosecutors are taking it seriously. I don't know if that's right or wrong; it seems like election tampering - and that's what this is - should be taken seriously. But since it's "just noodles," the principle is suddenly, to them, unimportant. Because, after all, they have to get elected, too; campaigning on how you stopped drugs in your area is much more successful than campaigning on how you stopped people buying votes with noodles.

[Johnny the Bull]

For there to be a valid contract there has to be an intention to create legal relations. The only time that's not required is when the agreement is signed under deed.

Is a bribe ever a valid legal contract?

Under the common law a contract is voidable (or void) only where there is mistake to the identity of the parties, mistake as to subject matter, where there has been a repudiation of the agreement, where the agreement has been frustrated, where there has been unconscionable conduct on the part of the contractor or undue influence over the contractee or where there is a misrepresentation, either innocently, negligently or fraudulently. Bribery is none of these things. It is a criminal offence. The contract itself is completely valid. However, the courts will not enforce a contract that requires or engages in criminal conduct.

The contract itself is completely valid even if there has been bribery. Its just unenforceable and leaves the briber (and often the bribee) lliable for criminal prosecution.

[3278]

Then how does contract law have anything at all to do with the subject at hand?

[Johnny the Bull]

Then how does contract law have anything at all to do with the subject at hand?

Marius brought it up, I was merely adding to it.

Quote:
For example, REM and Bruce Springsteen etc give a "free" concert to get people to vote.... So basically you are "bribed" with a concert ticket if you should use their logic.

Yeah, I've been going over this with lawyers now for a while, and they're all pretty baffled as to how that's legal.

Quote:
. . . sure you might say you'll vote but there is really no binding agreement.

But there is an agreement, which is all the law requires. The lack of a penalty if you break your agreement is pretty immaterial. Reasonably, if you tell Moore you're going to vote, he gives you some undewear, and you don't, he would be legally entitled to getting his underwear back.

[3278]

I understand that Marius brought it up, but would not the correct response be, "It is not a valid contract because it's [illegal] bribery," and not, "It's not a valid contract because there has to be an intent to create legal relations?" Or by "legal relations," were you contrasting that with, "illegal relations?"

[Johnny the Bull]

I understand that Marius brought it up, but would not the correct response be, "It is not a valid contract because it's [illegal] bribery," and not, "It's not a valid contract because there has to be an intent to create legal relations?" Or by "legal relations," were you contrasting that with, "illegal relations?"

No, because under the common law it is a valid contract though, based solely on common law authorities adopted in both Australia and the US, it's not an enforceable contract. Obviously, most jurisdictions under their criminal law, contracts for illegal conduct are considered void once criminal wrongdoing is proved. Not having the time to find and read the statute in question (I assume the electoral section of the US code) plus the associated case law, I assume bribery is a crime and it makes contracts of bribery void.

However, until that illegality is proven it is a valid contract.

As to the question about legal relations, its not a question of intention to create illegal v legal relations. The question is whether the parties considered the agreement between them to be a legally binding contract. The reason I brought it up is that if neither Moore nor the slackers intended for the giving of noodles or underwear to be valuable consideration for their pledge to vote and that the obligation could be enforced, then there is no contract to begin with. If that test was not in place, anyone giving another something would be considered to be contracting with that person, which is plainly not the case.

As an aside, ( and given that I haven't got the statute and the case law in front of me, I can't be sure) giving noodles /may/ be bribery, but that can occur outside the scope of a contract.

[3278]

This is why I'm a mathematician: our rules are simpler. [And that's saying something.]

[Johnny the Bull]

This is why I'm a mathematician: our rules are simpler. [And that's saying something.]

Why do you think most lawyers are alcholics, coke heads or both? I'm just waiting for my electives in the summer - internet and IP law. Sooo much easier.

[Serious Paul]

For what its worth Mooky, I personally see no difference between the Democratic Party doing and Moore doing it. Or for that matter anyone doing it. It's unethical to me. Period. Which is why you will never find me in posession of any of the stuff they hand out-ever.

[lorg]

So if they handed out something you really wanted and needed you say no thanks? Like a "free" car on Oprah (ok so they had to pay taxes). Ok so it probably had no strings attached to it but still.

[Buzzed]

Who cares about noodles and underwear when you can have a Votergasm?



Of course the clean pair of underwear and some noodles to eat after sex would be nice.

[lorg]

[Serious Paul]

I actually would cut my own leg off before I took handouts. Thats just me.

[Johnny the Bull]

I actually would cut my own leg off before I took handouts. Thats just me.

I'd take handouts from anyone dumb enough to give me them. Why should I refuse to profit off another's stupidity?

[FlakJacket]

How about unemployment benefit?

[Serious Paul]

Nope. Isn't it just crazy?

Pride is forever, pain is temporary. Like all discomfort. Like life actually. It's all fleeting, and nothing is forever, but I wax poetic.

It may make sort of stupid, but my pride is big sin. I like it.

[FlakJacket]

Oh yeah. For some reason that I can't really articulate I really didn't like being on benefits when I was unemployed for a while. I actually burned through my savings and borrowed some before caving in and signing up for it. Pride, stupidity, both, other- please check as appropriate.

[Johnny the Bull]

Nope. Isn't it just crazy?

Pride is forever, pain is temporary. Like all discomfort. Like life actually. It's all fleeting, and nothing is forever, but I wax poetic.

It may make sort of stupid, but my pride is big sin. I like it.

I wouldn't be grateful. I'd consider it swindling them, which I will take great pride in.

[lorg]

If someone wants to give me something I take it. Free stuff! If they on the other hand want something in return it is no longer free nor a gift.

About collecting benefits from the government, I have done that. I paid into the system for just that reason. Ofcause I am going to use it. GIMME GIMME GIMME! Sure it ain't fun having to fill out the forms, having to more or less give them your life story and validating your right to existance just so you can have a bit of money but it is still better then having no money.