Soapbox Derby: Tracking

Q: Do you think “tracking”one’s political opponent is OK here in Maine?

Sean Faircloth

“The Senator Who Cried Wolf” read the headline of Stephen Betts’ Rockland Courier-Gazette column. Betts says Senator Collins was “whining again that the opposing political party is—now get this—trying to hold her accountable.” Collins complained that videotaping her public statements (so-called tracking) is improper. Betts’ response: “Give me a break.”

When the Bangor Daily News favored Collins on this controversy, UMaine professor Amy Fried wrote: “I find it baffling that a newspaper, protected under the Constitution . . . would object to a campaign filming a public official in public.”

The Phoenix columnist Al Diamon quipped: “I’ve been guilty of tracking . . . I was paid to follow candidates . . . hoping they’d pick their noses or have sex with an intern. Except my job description didn’t say ‘tracker.’ It said ‘reporter.’ My employers were under the impression the First Amendment allowed me to tape any statement those political hopefuls might make . . .”

The Capital Weekly editorialized: “We don’t know which is more idiotic: U.S. Senator Collins . . . whining that she feels intimidated by a little cameraman . . . or the BDN backing her up.” The Weekly continued: “Will Collins next ask the press to leave her alone at public functions?”
These professionals believe the First Amendment worthy of deference—even when Susan Collins is involved. 

But “whiner” is the wrong label. Whining implies Collins was genuinely offended. In fact, Senator Collins’ 2002 opponent was tracked; Collins didn’t seek BDN help then.

Whining? Only on the surface. Political gamesmanship? Bingo. Collins was confident the Bangor media would play along.

Betts recounts why Senator Collins thought her political maneuvering would succeed: In 1996, BDN reporter John Day collaborated with the Collins strategists for an article headlined, “Dems Hire Investigator to Dig Dirt on Collins.”  Turns out Democrats had looked at—gasp!—Collins’ public record. Turns out, that’s what Republicans did to her opponent. And, turns out, there’s nothing wrong with that.

Betts writes: “The whole [tracking] matter would be laughable if not for [Collins’] prior campaigns’ checkered past.” Betts points out that the BDN omitted from its “tracking” stories the fact that Collins had used the same tactic a decade earlier—thanks to the BDN. Then, as now, implying unethical tactics helps the BDN’s endorsed candidate.

The Bangor Daily News has earned a reputation as possibly Maine’s best paper. I think BDN reporters and editorial writers are high quality. The bad old days of biased reporting are, one hopes, history. Editor Mark Woodward, a former Collins staffer, deserves credit for moving the paper away from Republican bias. Sadly, the recent BDN stance echoes the bad old days. Why now? Perhaps because the BDN readership agrees strongly with Tom Allen on Iraq—and disagrees with Senator Collins and George Bush. Tracking is a handy distraction.

Looking to 2008, will the Bangor media treat Senator Collins like any other candidate?

If trackers stand too close to a candidate, trackers should give space like any reporter. Beyond that, the alleged tracking controversy raises more questions about the Bangor media than it does about the tracking conducted by both parties.
 
Scott K Fish

“Know your enemy”—a familiar expression. Before squaring off on the football field against opposing teams, the Maine Black Bears study how the opposition plays the game. Why? So the Black Bears can create a game plan to defeat the other teams. That’s true of all competitive sports. It’s also true in politics. In politics, “know your enemy” is called “opposition research.”

“Tracking” is not “opposition research” and has no place in politics. The goal of tracking is not to outsmart the opposition; it’s to smear the opposition. If tomorrow I follow you and record everything you do and say in public with a camcorder, how long will it take before I have, say, 30 seconds of you looking like an idiot? That’s the essence of tracking.

Rep. Sean Faircloth was last elected in 2006 to the Maine House of Representatives for one two-year term. Sean is up for reelection in 2008. If I lived in Sean’s district (I don’t), I could run against him for the Maine House. Sean and I would then “campaign” against each other, each working to persuade a majority of voters we, not the other guy, are the best man for the job. We’d prepare to show voters our strengths and our opponent’s weaknesses. We’d study our opponent’s public record—including Bangor Metro Soapbox columns. We’d look for anything in our opponent’s public record showing he’s out of step with his constituents. “Know your enemy.”

Now, suppose I take my “opposition research” a step further and hire someone with a camcorder to follow/record Sean whenever he moves or speaks in public to get 60 seconds on film of Sean saying and/or doing something I can use on TV, radio, or the Internet to make him look like a monster, rogue, or a dolt. CAUTION! I didn’t say I had to have Sean on tape in the act of being a monster, etc. I just need tape I can manipulate to create an image of Sean as a monster, etc. That’s part of tracking.

Maybe you saw the picture last fall of a 20-something “tracker” working for Rep. Tom Allen with a camcorder in Sen. Susan Collins’ face while she was walking in a parade. That’s the other part of tracking. It’s intimidation. Tracking twists the relationship of politicians/candidates and the public. It is vital for candidates and the public to meet/greet in public places. Tracking makes that impossible.

How comfortable would you be addressing a crowd of strangers while your opponent’s guy has a camera in your face, knowing he can twist one honest slip and ruin your campaign? Why should one schmo with a camcorder mess up political events for everyone else?

Maine Democratic Party operative Carol Andrews defended Collins’ tracker and tracking itself as standard practice. Well, Ms. Andrews, I’ve been active for 20 years in Maine politics and Allen’s tracker is the first I’ve seen. If Tom Allen’s operative and other Maine Democrats defend this form of intimidation, what’s next? A Democrat defense of roughing up opponents and breaking kneecaps?