Kim denies having anything to do with the anonymous calls.
"We only did one call, which had to do with her commitment to raise the budget for public safety-without knowing the details of the budget-when she was endorsed by the public safety union," Jennifer Kim said. "But if there's anything else, then that may be uncoordinated with my campaign."
News 8 has updated their story to reflect the campaign's admission to placing the anonymous calls.
The Kim campaign said it was political speech protected by the first amendment, and not against the election code. However, it said it will check state law to see if it was an "inadvertent technical violation."
The Shade campaign said the information in the call is false and that State law states such anonymous, automated calls are illegal.
The following mail paid for by the Jennifer Kim campaign hit in the last day or two.
At issue is Randi Shade's campaign mangager/advisor Mark Nathan. Now, many BOR readers may know him from successfully managing a number of the current council's campaigns, and it is that point which the mail piece refers to. Fair enough.
But being a political blog, we wouldn't be doing our job if we didn't point the irony (or hypocrisy, take your pick) in this story- the key point being that the very same "developer lobbyist" that Jennifer Kim attacks in this mailer... was originally sought out by Jennifer Kim to run her campaign.
And the following were provided by Nathan himself as background for this. There are more but I think this illustrates the point. According to Nathan, Kim asked him to work on her 2005 campaign as well (he declined) and back in 2002, Nathan quote "personally hired her to work directly for me on the 2002 Tony Sanchez campaign, which she did for five months".
------ Forwarded Message
From: Jennifer Kim < jennifer.kim@... >
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 17:51:35 -0500
To: Mark Nathan < mark@... >
Subject: RE: Hi Jennifer...
Hi there, Mark. Yes, thanks for calling. I'm in DC right now and would be
able to meet Friday if you are available.
Jennifer
______________________________
From: Mark Nathan [mailto:mark@...]
Sent: Tue 6/5/2007 3:51 PM
To: Jennifer Kim; Jennifer Kim
Subject: Hi Jennifer...
Thanks for the call about your campaign. I left a voicemail on your cell
last week, thought I would email to see if we can find a time to talk. I
hope this finds you well!
Early I posted about apparent anonymous robocalls in the Austin City Council Place 3 race between Jennifer Kim and Randi Shade (oh, and Ken Weiss).
Well, it appears they may not so anonymous after all and indeed are from the Jennifer Kim campaign.
The number used to call has been previously identified as one used for Kim autocalls.
The issue now- is "Lisa" enough of a disclaimer for the Kim campaign to not be breaking the law? (Ironic given yesterday's 'ethics' hullabaloo?) Jeff Crosby points this out in the comments on the prior post.
It's against state law (Texas PUC Regulations). Robo calls that fail to properly identify the caller within the first 30 seconds of the call are illegal.
And for those not convinced this is from the Kim campaign, two scans of the latest attack mail from her campaign are below the fold. The messaging is the same.
Robocalls are a typical part of municipal election here in Austin. Typically they are of the endorsement variety (Hi, this is XYZ of Save Our Springs with an important message...) or directly from the candidate (Hi, this is Mayor Wynn inviting you to...). They are a cheap (though increasingly irritating) way for campaigns to get a message out to voters or layer on top of a GOTV operation for anywhere for about a nickel or dime a call.
But from time to time, you have negative attack or suppression calls which tend to be the ones that drive people to hate all robocalls in general. In the Place 3 race, such a call appears to have been released.
"Why is Randi Shade trying to break the bank? Hi, this is your neighbor Lisa, calling to let you know City Council candidate Randi Shade has made budget promises that could mean cuts in city services and higher taxes for you. In seeking the endorsement of police and firefighters, Shade agreed to increase funding for management positions without having seen a budget, which is now in the red. With the highest-paid public safety workers in the state, can we afford Randi Shade's promises? It's not different, and it's not Austin."
Notwithstanding that 1) I don't have a neighbor Lisa; and 2) one councilmember can't do anything alone (and thus the crux of the call is rendered sadly inert)- I suppose "different" and "Austin" are truly exemplified by anonymous attack ads, right, Jennifer Kim?
Now, there is nothing in the call that identifies this call as being from the Kim campaign specifically. I contacted the Shade campaign and they said that supporters of their from across the city had received the call- which if anything, means that Lisa lives in a lot of people's neighborhoods...
Each time I watch this I pick up on some new subtlety to it, besides the people I recognize in the commercial. I won't spoil the surprises I've found so I invite you to share in the comments what all you pick up on in this TV spot. You might need to make it full screen to pick up on more details.
Transcript...
I'm Randi Shade and I'm running for Austin City Council. I'm challenging incumbent Jennifer Kim... because we need an attitude adjustment at City Hall. Serving on city council is not about perks and privileges, it's about getting things done and solving problems for the people of Austin. We need a council member in place 3 who will listen and learn. If you'll vote for me, I'll be accountable, I'll be accessible... and unlike my opponent, I'll be happy to stand in line with you at the airport anytime.
Hi, I'm Randi Shade, I'm running for Austin City Council. (voiceover) We need an attitude adjustment at city hall.
After much deliberation and careful consideration, Clean Water Action and Texas Vote Environment have endorsed the following candidates for Austin City Council, 2008:
Place 1: Lee Leffingwell
Place 3: Jennifer Kim
Place 4: Dual endorsement: Robin Cravey and Laura Morrison
I'm not sure if the place 4 endorsement was driven more out of endorsing the credible non-Cid Galindo candidates, or a hedge on endorsing the (no longer) frontrunner Laura Morrison and environ Robin Cravey.
There seems to be a bit of a hullabaloo going on about advertising in this year's city council elections. It first started out with Rick Culleton of Discount Electronics started using his ad space in the Austin Chronicle on behalf of Austin City Council Place 1 candidate Jason Meeker (possibly in violation of state ethics laws).
Well, that came and went until yesterday, when a full page ad (.pdf) was taken out by Mr. Culleton as an individual, this time aimed at both Councilmembers Lee Leffingwell and Jennifer Kim. Now, it appears that he has taken that message to the airwaves, spending his own money on a similar message on TV.
I've found the whole episode a bit strange- I'm not sure I'd spend that much money randomly in a city council race but this is Austin and stranger things have certainly happened. Randi Shade released the following statement in regards to the apparent independent expenditure.
"I've been made aware today that Mr. Rick Culleton, the owner of Discount Electronics, has begun airing television commercials which are critical of Jennifer Kim and which advocate for my candidacy. I want to make clear that I have never met with or talked to Mr. Culleton about my campaign, and have no previous association with him. Mr. Culleton did make an unsolicited online contribution to my campaign on Wednesday night, and while I appreciate his support and advocacy, I am in no way involved in his effort and have not received any notification from him regarding any of his
independent expenditures."
