The Austinist.com filed a story earlier today that should cause a stir among the Austin Mayoral Campaign. According to their report, an unknown number of yellow leaflets formatted like parking meter tickets were placed on the windshields of downtown vehicles this weekend (go to the Austinist.com to see the picture) that advertised a distorted opinion about a position Lee Leffingwell has taken on the idea of require drivers to pay for parking downtown on nights and weekends.
Both ads are the work of the Brewster Nation, a self-described group of “representatives of Austin’s small business, creative, digital, and other tech industries” and “private citizens who support McCracken and a more creative and productive Austin.” The latter comes from the language on the violation flyers, which the group admits they paid for. But as far as campaigns go, it doesn't seem nearly sufficient enough a disclaimer. According to a press release, the group doesn’t see themselves as a political action committee, which may explain why there’s no disclosure on the ads, or information on file with the city.
The text of the leaflet:
Front:
VOTE BREWSTER...or get used to seeing these after enjoying your night downtown. [image of parking citation, under which the words "Brewster Nation" appear.] DECIDING NOT TO VOTE IS STILL A VOTE.
Back:
Do you know that Leffingwell wants you to pay for this spot on nights and weekends? Lee thinks that the bad parking situation downtown will be improved if the city can charge for this meter at night and on the weekends. [Ed. note: That's a lie]. Lee's logic is a violation of sensibility which will only harm downtown businesses, visitors, and our ailing music scene.
VOTE BREWSTER!
Short-sighted policy and a lack of concern for Austin's downtown, entertainment, restaurants, and businesses make Lee a bad choice for mayor. Brewster McCracken supports Austin's creative and tech economy and he doesn't want to ruin your night on the town. Spread the word: "McCracken gets it!"
The two campaigns responded to the story. Colin Rowan, McCracken's campaign manager, chose not to rebuke the anonymous political campaign ad, but instead praised its very ideas while adding, "it's certainly a different approach than our campaign has chosen." [Read his full statement here].
Lee Leffingwell campaign manager Mark Nathan pointed out that the leaflet is illegal, because while it has "Brewster Nation" written on the ad, there is no official disclaimer. The website Brewster Nation is also anonymous, though it is basically a mirror site of the Brewster McCracken campaign and boasts the "creative and tech" credentials in its argumentation. (An e-mail to the only contact information provided was sent an hour before this story printed -- chances are they'll only respond once this is published, if at all).
Nathan also pointed out that Lee merely said the question of whether or not to charge for meters downtown was just something to consider. Watch Lee's comment here:
The Analysis/Editorial
First of all, Burnt Orange Reportendorsed Lee Leffingwell for Mayor. Let's be honest about that, since there are others that cannot be honest.
It's not just that they cannot be honest. It is that there are others who have used free speech as a chicken's defense for honesty and accountability. Free speech is and always will be the most prized value in a free society, and the internet is one of its greatest manifestations. From free speech and the internet, we have enjoyed the benefits of a "creative and tech" economy by which many in Austin, myself included, are passionate supporters and defenders of. In fact, most of my large posts on Austin recently have argued that we need to defend our tech and creative forces:
The other Mayoral candidates, political party machines, special interest groups and commercial media of Austin ARENOTADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF OUR CREATIVE COMMUNITY!
It's pretty clear that I, personally, have written a lot about the needs of our creative community, and against political party machines. Yet today, much more than before, I stand strongly behind the endorsement our website made for Lee Leffingwell.
When anonymous groups post anoymous leaflets that violate campaign law -- laws that are designed to protect, not limit, the principles of free speech -- then I cannot listen to any other arguments they make. In fact, I want to take action to make sure they don't get what they want.
Free speech was designed to give us more information, not hide it. Illegal campaign tactics delivered anonymously represent the practices of free speech we have continued to evolve beyond in the course of the last four hundred years.
Journalism in America began with men from ships leaving reports of what happened on a trip in bars. The bar served as an official record-keeper (journal) for the events. Over time, those reports evolved into leafleting, then magazines delivered on railroads, then newspapers and fireside chats and talk radio and cable television -- until finally, we had the internet. A disorganized, decentralized destination of equality for anyone that had access to its third-rail of communication power, the internet is the most significant experiment in free speech we've witnessed since the writing of the First Amendment.
With the internet, the entire industrialized model for organization falls apart. We don't need pyramid businesses -- we can create a market where small businesses can talk with one another and share cultural interests instead of corporate interests. With the internet, we can organize organically as a network, living out the ideas of Reed's Law and exchanging information that is discussed culturally instead of disseminated calculably. With time, the internet can slowly erode the barriers of influence and power that have been the true walls of free speech for so long.
And yet...here we are today. The supporters of a "creative and tech" community -- bolstered by the values of a networked information economy that was created by the free speech and open source values of the internet -- are choosing to move information as if we hadn't evolved over the last four hundred years. Anonymous leafleting, a practice of journalism we left behind hundreds of years ago, has crawled on its belly to the internet thanks to those who should be helping it.
Why would you crash the gates just to rebuild the fence?
I hate what was done. I also know that I want everyone else to know that the leaflet is a lie.
Leffingwell saying it's an idea to look at is not at all the same as saying we should pay for meters on the weekend. I think it's offensive that Lee is always ripped for not being forward-thinking, yet every time he tries to have a conversation about the future of Austin, he's torn apart by a bunch of hyenas. Just because you may disagree with him wanting to have an open and honest conversation about an idea doesn't mean you have the intellectual, ethical, or (in this case) legal right to lie about it.
The internet is a new and powerful phenomenon. Let's treat it with some respect, be honest in our campaigning, and stop engaging in fear-mongering anonymous attacks that destroy the best parts of free speech that gave all of us our (online) voice in the first place.
