Campaign Salvo Hits a Bystander

“Hit mail” has been around probably since the first candidate ran for office, and it is not likely to go away.

It is always an indication of the desperation of a candidate who believes he can’t win on his own credentials and attempts to discredit those of his opponent. Many times it backfires with the voters, especially if it contains unsubstantiated accusations or leaps of judgment such as occurred in 1987 in Anaheim.

William Ehrle, an Anaheim City Council candidate, was the target of negative campaign mail. A flier claimed Ehrle had a permanent psychiatric disability merely because he had sought the aid of a psychiatrist. He had sought the opinion in connection with a worker’s compensation claim with the Santa Ana Unified School District. The strategy didn’t work. Ehrle was overwhelmingly elected.

Campaign hit mail is always sent out to targeted voters at the last minute, usually so late that the opponent cannot respond to the false accusations in the mailer. But the voters are getting wise to these tactics, and many of those pieces are briefly scanned and dropped into the round file--the nearest trash can.

If the recent city of Orange special election to fill a vacant council seat is any indication of the future, the voters are in for an increasing barrage of hit mail. But what happened in Orange is unusual in the annals of Orange County politics.

Scott Steiner (former Supervisor William G. Steiner’s youngest son) ran against Carolyn Cavecche. Approximately five days before the election, an expensive hit piece was mailed to registered Republican voters in Orange. This piece targeted an individual who was not even running for office. That person was me.

In all my 30-plus years of involvement in the political arena in Orange County, I have never seen hit mail that went after someone who wasn’t even in the race. In this case, by associating his opponent with someone else, a candidate hoped to attract votes for himself. If that was the case, it was a miserably failed effort. Steiner lost the election by a surprising 30 percentage points. It had initially been predicted to be a close race.

Since I was the noncandidate target of the mail in Orange, I looked into the possibility of filing a lawsuit. I discovered, however, that our libel laws are extremely weak when it comes to political campaign material.

It is not enough to prove that the hit mail contains lies. One also has to prove they were done intentionally and with malice. It’s very difficult to do when all a candidate has to say is “I thought those were the facts.”

Additionally the courts allow libelous information to be printed and distributed as long as it does not cause financial damage to the offended party or does not represent a financial gain to the offender.

The question of financial gain in campaign material came up in a state Assembly race in Orange County. Former Assemblyman John R. Lewis (R-Orange) was let off after being indicted in 1989 for allegedly forging former President Ronald Reagan’s signature on his literature in a 1986 campaign. A state appellate court overturned the indictment, determining that the alleged forgery did not create any financial benefit for Lewis. Apparently no one argued that the alleged forgery assisted Lewis in being elected to the Assembly, where he earned a substantial “financial benefit” by way of his salary.

Campaign consultants and candidates who are willing to win at any cost are fully aware that it is almost impossible for anyone to sue them successfully over their campaign literature. What they haven’t learned, however, is that off-the-wall accusations and lies may backfire, resulting in voter disgust and ultimate voter rejection.

It has always been and continues to be my belief that the truth serves everyone best, especially those running for office.

To those candidates who choose to resort to unsubstantiated information and innuendo to gain votes, beware that even though you may not have to answer for your actions in court, you will be judged by the voters.

In elections it is, after all, the voters who have the final say in the court of public opinion.