Election commission cites McGee campaign for e-mail
Updated, 2:21 p.m. Friday: The McGee-Smithburg campaign has issued a statement regarding last night’s citation. Access it here or at the bottom of this story.
The ASG election commission cited the campaign of presidential candidate Mike McGee early Friday morning for an e-mail sent by Academic Director-elect Muhammad Safdari in which he accused candidate Bill Pulte’s campaign of “extralegal tactics.”
Safdari’s e-mail, which was forwarded to various campus listservs, had “several issues of slander, libel and defamation,” according to a statement released by the election commission.
Voters will be sent to a special page with an alert about the violation before being able to vote. The page will link to the election commission’s statement, which will serve as a “fact check” for students who may have read Safdari’s e-mail, Election Commissioner Paul David Shrader said. Shrader added that the statement will serve as the extent of the punishment.
The voting Web site currently features the entire election commission statement, but after meeting with McGee and three other members of his campaign early Friday morning, the commission decided to simply notify students that the violation occurred.
Students can decide whether or not to read about the violation before voting, Shrader said. “We’re just trying to think of what’s equitable and fair for all candidates involved.”
In his e-mail, Safdari alleged that the Pulte campaign had “either hacked into the website or had an in at the election commission giving them real-time results so they knew how many votes they needed to be on top at any given time.” He also said that the Pulte campaign arranged for an e-mail to be sent alleging that McGee and Smithburg would cut funding for Mayfest and A&O by 20 percent.
“You cannot in good conscience sit still to let this prick ascend to the presidency of the student body,” he said in the e-mail.
In a statement released Friday, the McGee-Smithburg campaign said, “Tommy and I, nor any key decision maker of the campaign, have at no point endorsed or encouraged any smears of any campaign. We were not aware of this email until outsiders forwarded it to us. Unfortunately, Mo Safdari made a bad decision based on false assumptions, a decision which he clearly regrets. Put simply, smears and politics have no place in ASG or the ASG elections.”
Contacted before the ruling, at 10:40 p.m. on Thursday night, McGee said he saw the e-mail but that his campaign had nothing to do with it.
“Our main focus is to get to as many people as possible” to convince students to vote for him, McGee said at the time. He called it “unfortunate,” but added “I definitely don’t condemn it. We’re all students, we all make mistakes.”
“As far as we know [the e-mail] was not endorsed by McGee or crafted by McGee in any way,” Shrader said. “[However] the campaign is responsible for the members who are working on the campaign.”
Safdari was elected academic director with 84.4 percent of the vote on Thursday.
Safdari issued a second e-mail later in the day Thursday, in which he acknowledged that some of his accusations were “to degrees not true.”
“My e-mail was primarily motivated by my outrage against the use of laptops going door to door, the latter points were more speculative than definitive,” he said in the second e-mail.
Safdari has not yet responded to multiple requests for comment.
Reached for comment early Friday, Pulte said, “We’re moving on from it, we’re letting people know that we’re going to deliver for them, and hopefully my opponent’s actions will speak for themselves.”
In a phone interview, Pulte’s running mate Patrick Dawson said that the election commission’s statement “sufficiently addresses the problem.”
“I would expect the same on our end,” he said.
Accusations of foul play have been thrown on all sides since the first round of the elections. Shrader made phone calls to Pulte after reports that members his campaign team had gone around dorms late Tuesday night with laptops to convince students to vote on the spot.
“What we made clear during the candidate information session is that no voting booths would be allowed [...] because we didn’t want anybody voting with somebody else,” Shrader said. “There was some confusion apparently, especially with Bill’s campaign, that going around with a laptop would count as a voting booth. However I verified that with Bill at about 12:45 a.m., and I again reiterated it when I saw that he had sent out an e-mail saying he was 40 votes ahead that also mentioned going around with your laptop.”
Vice-presidential candidate Tommy Smithburg voiced concerned over the use of laptops by the Pulte-Dawson campaign team.
“When it comes to the laptop thing, it was made very clear at the info session whether or not we could do it, and the answer is no, you could not do this, so it is a strategy we did not pursue,” the Weinberg junior said. “We definitely heard a lot of reports that the Pulte campaign was doing it, and the only thing we have to say is that we’re disappointed.”
However, Shrader noted that in campaigns with a large number of supporters, it could be hard to determine if teams were actually responsible for violations.
Pulte declined to comment in response to these accusations, stating that he and his team were “trying to run a campaign, we’re running it legally, we’re doing everything by the guidelines.”
Shrader added that both campaigns have been accused of “misinformation,” notably using unsubstantiated numbers to convince students to vote on Wednesday.
International Studies Residential College resident Peter Skopec told a reporter on Wednesday evening that Pulte told him “he was about 15 votes behind and that he would like my vote.” Skopec said that Pulte added that he “can be one of the 15 that makes a difference.”
According to Shrader, Pulte sent out an e-mail to his team early Wednesday afternoon claiming that he had a 40 vote lead, a fact Shrader refuted.
“I was the only person who had access to any of the results,” Shrader said, adding that the numbers used by Pulte were “not true,” as Pulte had around an 100-point lead throughout much of the day until two hours before the polls closed.
Pulte told Shrader that he had used numbers as a “motivation tool” for his campaign. But the McGee-Smithburg campaign followed his lead.
“We had heard that Bill was saying that [he had a 40-vote lead], and the way we reacted was ‘Well, we’re not sure if it’s 100 percent true, but if it is, then we should get it out there,’” Smithburg said. “While it may have been a lie, I think it definitely got both campaigns pushing just a little bit harder than they already were.”
Outgoing President Neal Sales-Griffin met with the election commission before they issued the statement, and with McGee and the election commission after the statement was issued. Sales-Griffin said he was serving as a neutral, “outside resource.”
Though Safdari’s initial e-mail implied that Sales-Griffin was campaigning with McGee, “I’m staying neutral,” Sales-Griffin said.
“My advice to both of the campaigns has been to take the high ground. Focus on your message, focus on going door to door,” Sales-Griffin said. “If they get caught up and distracted with all the negativity, all they’re doing is shooting themselves in the foot.”
“It’s a very emotional time for a lot of people, so they just need to get over those things and campaign.”
Below is the McGee-Smithburg campaign’s response:
Dear friends and supporters,
Tommy and I are extremely disappointed over the recent events. Tommy and I, nor any key decision maker of the campaign, have at no point endorsed or encouraged any smears of any campaign. We were not aware of this email until outsiders forwarded it to us. Unfortunately, Mo Safdari made a bad decision based on false assumptions, a decision which he clearly regrets. Put simply, smears and politics have no place in ASG or the ASG elections.
We, as students, must Expect More from our experience at Northwestern. Integrity and honesty must always be unquestionable in your student government and your elected officials. Our elections should be fair and respectful to not only the candidates but to the student body as well. We encourage you to look past the recent events and look forward to an ASG that focuses on working for you.
Sincerely,
Mike & Tommy
| Print
that was dumb as shit on safdari’s part but he does have a point. in a different nbn article it quoted pulte as telling students he needed 40 more votes and 15 more votes at different times. he was either making shit up to guilt people into voting or he really did have an in. also, safdari hasn’t been working on mcgee’s campaign at all. he’s been working on his own and while he did endorse mike and tommy he definitely has not worked on their campaign. if pulte wins it’ll be because the election commission unfairly penalized mike and tommy.
smooth
April 17, 2009 at 1:39 am
If Mike wins it will be because Safdari slandered Pulte/Dawson. It’s lies and even the Election Commission confirmed it. They had no in, get it? Nada.
smoothie
April 17, 2009 at 1:46 am
who cares? so much damn drama.
seriously
April 17, 2009 at 1:54 am
Smooth, I remember reading that article too, but now I can’t seem to find it. Anyone out there on the interwebs have a link?
curious
April 17, 2009 at 1:58 am
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=77882701979&h=r7Bch&u=dPY2d&ref=nf
“Forty more votes and I win,” [Pulte] announces. “And we get a Greek in motherfuckin’ office.” He receives a call on his Blackberry and picks up the pace, practically jogging to Ayers College of Commerce and Industry, his next destination.
“At 8:15 p.m. Pulte is making his way through the second floor of the International Studies Residential College. A girl sitting in the lounge directs him towards the door of residents she knows are home. Pulte knocks and enters the room of Weinberg freshman Peter Skopec. They talk for a couple minutes — Pulte “told me he was about 15 votes behind and that he would like my vote,” and that he “can be one of the 15 that makes a difference,” Skopec would say later.”
Make of it what you will.
Bawse
April 17, 2009 at 2:20 am
Um can Pulte do math? Forty more to win? Down 15? Up a billion?
Student
April 17, 2009 at 2:27 am
Who edited this??? Next time you’re trying to send out an article as quickly as possible spend the extra minute to read it over before pressing the submit button…
Concerned
April 17, 2009 at 2:33 am
This “punishment” is demonizing Mike and Tommy and it’s not even their fault, for Safdari did not endorse them until yesterday.
There should be an investigation into the Election Commission, headed by Paul David Shrader, a clear supporter of the Pulte campaign. This laptop business and “random” number estimations should also be a violation, but Shrader seems to overlook that. He seems to always give Pulte the benefit of the doubt.
And why put the letter immediately before people can actually vote? That’s wrong and unethical. Most students didn’t even read Safdari’s letter, yet Mike’s condemnation and, subsequently, demonization is at the fore? Something smells fishy.
student
April 17, 2009 at 2:53 am
So Mike’s campaign gets bashed for an email they had no control over and Pulte’s campaign gets away with laptop lobbying and straight up lying about results??? How is that fair and unbiased?
student
April 17, 2009 at 3:06 am
[“I was the only person who had access to any of the results,” Shrader said, adding that the numbers used by Pulte were “not true,” as Pulte had around an 100-point lead throughout much of the day until two hours before the polls closed.]
I would like to see a compelling reason that anyone, including a commissioner, has access to running totals throughout the day. Even if sworn to secrecy, that is simply information that does not need to be collected. After the fact, why should any of us know who was leading at what point in the day? Technology is impressive. I am sure that it was in part of the convenience of voting online that contributed to having over 4000 voters, but some simple conventions from “analog elections” should be preserved, like NOT BEING ABLE TO OPEN THE BALLOT BOX BEFORE IT IS OVER.
David
April 17, 2009 at 3:31 am
I was with my friend at around 8:30pm when she got a call from one of Pulte’s campaign managers telling her to vote for Pulte because it was so close and about to go to a runoff. Maybe the election commission should conduct a real investigation before being so quick to jump to Pulte’s side and defend him.
student
April 17, 2009 at 3:40 am
All I have to say is whoever wrote that “violation statement” on behalf of the ASG election commission needs to pull their head out of their own ass. I personally am not invested in the election, but when I read through that, it read like a love note to Pulte. Biased much?
Wow
April 17, 2009 at 8:19 am
So either Pulte didn’t lie about the numbers and is cheater, or he is a liar, trying to con students already. Really? This is the best we could do? You all do know this whole debacle is an example of why everyone thinks ASG is a joke, right?
Hmm
April 17, 2009 at 8:54 am
Bullcrap! If Pulte made up the numbers, do you really think he would give a quote for North by Northwestern? He would look like a total liar!!!! It’s so clear that he had an in. In addition, is it just a coincidence that he knew “roughly” the results of the election? Remember if he had a couple dozen more votes this would have been over. IT’S A LIE AND A COVER UP!!!
Grace
April 17, 2009 at 8:58 am
This is why people hate ASG. This election commission clearly wanted the attention and made a hasty decision. I had NEVER EVEN READ THIS EMAIL and then I read the statement before voting.
The statement is from ASG and endorses Pulte so I figured I should vote for him, even though I voted for Mike the 1st time
Unfair
April 17, 2009 at 9:11 am
Wow, McGee’s campaign team really should be out campaigning and not commenting on NBN…
Student
April 17, 2009 at 9:41 am
Right on Student! what kind of lame-os use a public forum to comment on current events?…
craig
April 17, 2009 at 10:30 am
It seems that both camps used lies as a “motivation tool.”
Bill Pulte himself went around telling people he knew the current standings when he clearly could not or should not have.
Mo Safdari, connected to but not a part of the McGee campaign, wrote an internal e-mail to his staff making some false accusations about Bill Pulte. I say some because two-claiming to know the results in real time and bringing laptops door to door–turned out to be true.
Which one is worse?
Ben
April 17, 2009 at 10:48 am
Stop making false accusations.
None of Safdari’s claims were violations. The laptops were not clarified beforehand and therefore do not qualify as a violation. In addition, Pulte was using those numbers to motivate the students going around, a tactic also used by McGee/Smithburg. And don’t accuse Paul David of siding with a campaign, because he is not. If you believe this to be true, CONTACT PAUL DAVID and HAVE A MEETING WITH HIM. Don’t just anonymously accuse people of anything, come out.
Hey
April 17, 2009 at 11:18 am
It is clear that Safdari was working in the McGee campaign, as was stated in his final encouragement for anyone supporting McGee to rally at 6pm outside Parc. Sorry, but to say that he had nothing to do with the campaign is nothing more than feigned ignorance.
Student
April 17, 2009 at 11:19 am
this entire situation is dumb.
Anon
April 17, 2009 at 12:00 pm
“However, Shrader noted that in campaigns with a large number of supporters, it could be hard to determine if teams were actually responsible for violations.”
So this little statement gives Pulte a free pass on the laptops, but they’re still trying to stick the long dick of the law up Mike’s ass because of an email sent by one of his supporters not officially on his team either?
I don’t get it.
Ehh
April 17, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Safdari is officially on Mike’s team. In addition, he made a clear endorsement of him as well. Pulte’s laptop is NOT A FREE PASS. As a neutral member of ASG, let me clarify for all who are confused. Laptops were never explicitly forbidden. Therefore, since it was not cited in the election guidelines or talked about, a set ruling did not come until after the first round of voting. Since Pulte supporters used laptops during the first round of voting when it was legal to do so, they were not cited for a violation, rightly so.
Shrader made the decision to cite the McGee/Smithburg team for a violation because Safdari is officially a member of the McGee campaign (he actually went around the dorms yesterday WITH Mike) and because the email violate Election Guidelines and also University Guidelines.
There is no bias here.
RE: Muckraker
April 17, 2009 at 12:15 pm
So Pulte was rewarded for finding a loophole that he should have known was morally, though not officially, wrong.
I get it now.
Oh
April 17, 2009 at 12:22 pm
You are a McGee supporter aren’t you? How was is morally wrong? Don’t the Democrats drive the poor to the voting stations? I remember Obama’s team doing this for the campaign.
It is not a loophole. It was not clarified. And let me remind you the a small fraction of McGee/Smithburg supporters did that too.
RE: Oh
April 17, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Have any of the people talking actually vote yet?
René Jovel aka SupaKat
April 17, 2009 at 12:28 pm
There’s a difference between driving people to the voting stations and standing over them while they vote…
Also lack of clarification is the definition of a loophole.
RE: Oh
April 17, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Standing over them? Well maybe you don’t understand also the fact the slander, libel, and defamation is against Election Commission Guidelines and also University Guidelines. If you are in support of slander, libel, and defamation, please feel free to talk to the University to see if they agree.
Lack of clarification does not necessarily mean a loophole.
RE: RE: Oh
April 17, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Loophole: an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or set of rules.
That sounds pretty much like what we have here.
Show me where I supported Safdari’s letter in any way. I only expressed my concern with Pulte’s tactics, which have so far not been justified in a way that satisfied me as a voter who has not yet decided who to vote for today.
Too many REs
April 17, 2009 at 12:45 pm
If Mike and Tommy lose this election, they’ll have Mo Safdari to thank for their loss. It was totally arrogant, self-centered and above all dumb for Mo to send out that e-mail. He was clearly just trying to make a name for himself and he probably cost Mike the election by doing so. Good job.
It'll be Mo's Fault
April 17, 2009 at 1:18 pm
If Pulte and Dawson lose this election, they’ll have Mo Safdari to thank for their loss. It was totally arrogant, self-centered and above all dumb for Mo to send out that e-mail. He was clearly just trying to make a name for himself and he probably cost Bill the election by doing so. Good job.
2
April 17, 2009 at 1:25 pm
If Pulte and Dawson lose this election, it’s because Pulte is a pompous douchebag.
.
April 17, 2009 at 2:09 pm
You’re awfully uninformed for a member of ASG. As noted in the official election committee report, the rule about laptops was clarified at around 1:30 PM on Wednesday. Not “after the first round of voting.”
RE: Muckracker
April 17, 2009 at 3:33 pm
You’re just an idiot. He is a pompous douchebag? If McGee wins it’s because of that slander that his supporter Mo sent out. That’s all.
.
April 17, 2009 at 4:57 pm
if he wins its because people voted for him. who is he? i dont know. THiRD BASE
hmm
April 17, 2009 at 5:42 pm
If you read the letter that the ASG elections committee wrote and put on their voting page, it says that voting booths are illegal, but “mobile” voting booths were not clarified. A voting booth is a voting booth, regardless of whether or not it moves, and they even called it one in their own letter. Its clear that Shrader has chosen a side…
Anonymous
April 17, 2009 at 6:02 pm
If McGee wins it’s because Pulte wasn’t allowed to intimidate people into voting by bringing laptops into their rooms today.
.
April 17, 2009 at 6:51 pm
It’s over baby. Let’s move on as a university of one.
Northwestern
April 17, 2009 at 7:29 pm
I’m so glad Mo sent out that 3 a.m. email. Best amusement I’ve had in weeks.
The Entire, Very Important Lincoln-Hinman Dorm
April 17, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Props to NBN through all of this; especially in the midnight to 4AM run impressive updating
David
April 17, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Summary:
Safdari is a moron.
Anon
April 17, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Good summary. If anything, Safdari should get some sort of punishment, if only from the ASG itself to show that it does not support such douchebaggery.
Anonymous
April 17, 2009 at 11:08 pm
ASG Elections = Joke
Anonymous
April 18, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Joke = ASG in general
Anonymous
April 18, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Who the fuck cares? It’s a bunch of kids scrabbling over a resume boost, in a position where very little will actually be done.
lol
April 19, 2009 at 1:03 pm