Big Business takes control of Elections and their Employees campaign contributions.

The last hope campaign finance would retain at least some restrictions died last night in the Senate.

AP: Wisconsin Republicans early Saturday pushed through a pair of bills to loosen campaign finance law ... And despite assurances earlier Friday from Republican senators that they were going to require campaign donors to disclose their employer, as is required under current law, the final version approved does not mandate such reporting … does away with a requirement that people who give more than $100 to campaigns disclose their employers.

Republican donors are salivating over this beauty. They have already tried to game the elections campaign system, and now can again without prosecution. This amazing action gives business owners the ability to ask, and coerce employees to contribute to politicians they don't support:

In 2011, Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co. CEO William Gardner was convicted of two felonies for exceeding campaign finance limits and giving personal and company funds to railroad employees so they could make political donations to Walker and other candidates at Gardner's direction. 

(Gardner) asked his employees to make tens of thousands of dollars in political contributions, including donations to Gov. Scott Walker, and then reimbursing his workers.

Lesson learned? You would think, but instead, the lesson Republicans learned was to make this deceptive power shift to business owners legal and ripe for abuse. 

Big corporate and special interests want free speech without the consequences of their actions. They want to hide their agenda because they know the public would be repulsed by their activities. In today's Journal Sentinel editorial...:

Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), at one time a reasonable voice in the Senate, went so far as to claim that the names of corporations and other employers weren't relevant and that those parties could face boycotts or worse for making political contributions.

But Democrats saw it differently:

Democrats blasted the measure ... "What the leader talks about isn't freedom of speech. It's freedom of cash," Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) said.

This whole thing kind of makes you wonder why Republicans, who opposed unions supposedly forcing employees to contribute to Democratic campaigns, just made it legal for GOP supporting employers the ability to do just that with their employees. 

The breathtaking conservative activist Supreme Court decision that declared money free speech gave birth to every imagined "free speech" use of money, with no moral or ethical restriction whatsoever.

Identifying those donations was made easier because donors had to disclose they worked for the railroad company when they gave the money.

The requirement also made it possible for the public to learn payday lenders had flooded majority Democrats' and minority Republicans' campaign accounts with a combined $75,000 in 2009 as they tried to thwart efforts to regulate them.

The battered public is already numb to the inevitable corruption they know will follow, all the while being told this is what the founding fathers meant about freedom and liberty. Thank god for the Republicans warped sense of "confidence" and "certainty" being returned to our electoral system. 

PR Watch had a great piece on the Walker/Republican reform agenda, exposing the only groups backing this horrific assault on representative government:

So who is calling for these measures? The Republican politicians in control of state government and the billionaires who fund them.

The only group lobbying in favor of the bill to deform the GAB is David Koch's Americans for Prosperity, which spent $10 million in Wisconsin during the recall elections. A newly-formed group called "Wisconsin Alliance for Reform" has begun running radio ads supporting the bill; its web domain was registered by Lorrie Pickens, a former leader of AFP, and its Executive Director is Luke Fuller, a former staffer for the bill's sponsor Sen. Leah Vukmir (who is also the number two at the Koch-backed American Legislative Exchange Council, or "ALEC.")

The only groups that lobbied in support of the bill exempting political corruption from John Doe probes is, again, Americans for Prosperity, as well as Wisconsin Family Action, a group that was implicated in the John Doe probe.

The only group lobbying in support of the bill to gut the state's campaign finance laws is Wisconsin Right to Life, whose Executive Director is Pickens, the former AFP leader who also registered the web domain for "Wisconsin Alliance for Reform." Pickens was implicated in the 1997 campaign finance coordination probe that resulted in the harshest penalty ever levied for election violations in the state, and which established the legal precedent for the Walker investigation.

And these special interest groups, funded by out-of-state billionaires like the Koch brothers, are apparently calling the shots within the Wisconsin legislature, regardless of what voters think.

This week, a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found 69 percent of both Republican and Democratic voters agree with the statement that they “feel angry because our political system seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power . . . rather than working to help everyday people get ahead” ... 61 communities in Wisconsin, including some in the most conservative pockets of the state, have passed referendums expressing opposition to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United and declaring money is not speech.

Rep. Chris Danou to Republicans: "I understand your side of the aisle benefits from cynicism toward this body and the good work of government. You benefit when they think we're all a bunch of crooks."

Did you ever wonder how Republicans not only gained power, but remain competitive with the Democratic Party, despite a long list of failed economic policies? Heck, you can't get any worse than the Great Recession or proposals to do away with Medicare and Social Security.

But it also goes beyond the conservative public's unwavering commitment and personally invested belief that their party is there to save the country, from whatever imagined evil they assign to the Democratic agenda.

Vilification of liberal progressive Democrats is a tool, a firewall Republicans depend on to insulate themselves from the many times they've been wrong about policy but have no way to explain it. Republicans are fighting evil, so when they openly attempt to game the system to their advantage, it's because they had no other choice. They have to save the country.

One Democrat bottom lined it during the campaign finance "debate." Rep. Chris Danou put to words what many of us have been thinking for years. He revealed the Republicans "secret;" how getting rid of John Doe investigations, allowing unlimited amounts of corrupting money, and eventually doing away with open records laws will only make the public distrust politicians even more:



These anti-government Republicans, ironically, are now the ones in control of government. So will they start telling us why government is now something good?

Democrats took a stand, and Television news coverage took a pass.

Why didn't WISC and WKOW cover the Democratic recusal and protest over the Republicans outrageous "reform" bill changing the states campaign finance laws? It was important for the public know for future reference what party was responsible for this open door to corruption, and what party fought it to the bitter end.

WPT's Here and Now thankfully stepped up with this short but respectful look at the Democratic recusal:

Rep. Peter Barca: "We'll be the only state in the nation ... we'll be the only one that will allow zero disclosure and NO DISCLAIMER."

Rep. Latonya Johnson: "The real reason that I'm recusing myself from voting for this bill Mr. Speaker, is because it SUCKS. THIS BILL SUCKS.

Here and Now also put together a video feature covering the WPR and WPT Wisconsin Survey by St. Norberts College. It appears the public's not too happy with the direction Walker and the Republicans are taking Wisconsin. Better late than never? I wish that were so:

Democrats Recused themselves from GOP campaign corruption bill.

Republicans in congress said it was unfair Democrats rammed ObamaCare down everyone’s throats without a single Republican vote. Poor babies.

And yet, Republicans ramming Act 10 and now campaign finance down the throats of legislators voters who want to take money out of elections is okay? Who listens to the public anyway, when we have “leaders” who know what’s best, and "hold listening sessions so it gives the appearance the administration is reaching out." - Lobbyist Bill McCoshen. 

Cap Times: Democrats in the Wisconsin Assembly (stood up and) recused themselves en masse from a Wednesday evening vote on a contentious GOP proposal to reshape the state's campaign finance laws. The bill passed shortly before 8 p.m. with the unanimous support of the chamber's Republican members, with no Democrats casting votes. Democrats cited state statute 19.46, which prevents public officials from "taking any official action substantially affecting a matter in which the official ... has a substantial financial interest."

"Because the bill has a direct financial interest for myself ... I feel it is necessary to recuse myself given the direct self-interest that this bill provides for members of this body," said Rep. Cory Mason, D-Racine, leading the arguments.

Sen. Jon Erpenbach put it this way:

“If we do something wrong, we should be investigated,” added Sen. John Erpenbach (D-Middleton), his voice rising with emotion. “I don’t want any part of this bill. People are cynical enough already. Let’s not give them another reason to hate politicians.” 

This outraged Rep. Robin Vos, the biggest whiny asshole ramming crony government down our throats. Silly Democrats should take Vos' juvenile overly broad advice:

Vos accused Democrats of setting a "seriously dangerous precedent" by recusing themselves, noting legislators could make the same argument for voting on the state budget or issues that affect their hometown.

"I have never been so disappointed in the members of the minority." Vos said Democrats took their leadership's cue to "walk off a cliff" and called their actions "silly in the extreme."

Yes, it's  those power hungry Democrats who are being extreme in all this.

And Rep. Joel Kleefisch, a man who resently transformed from legislator to neanderthal, observed:

He was saddened to see Democrats engage in a "stunt."

Going back to the future on campaign finance is also the Republicans idea of being more "progressive" than Democrats. Ouch:

Rep. Adam Neylon, R-Pewaukee: "...stop the theatrics ... we will operate under the current existing state law throughout history forever. Is that what you want? Because that doesn't sound very progressive to me."

With the Supreme Court in shambles, Justices go on Loony Tunes Rants Trashing election law, like Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce intended.

Imagine, after 4 decades (and coincidentally with Republicans firmly in charge), the 4 partisan conservative activist Justices suddenly noticed our campaign laws have been too broad and unconstitutional. The actual unambiguous law blocking coordination between campaigns and outside groups is now seen as ambiguous and too broad. Who knew? Just like that…

…Justice Michael Gableman found collaboration between issue groups and campaigns was not illegal … the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist.

And while the leaders of big money special interests whined and released private information barred by the John Doe law, the Justices decided to prevent the investigators from offering their side:

The justices didn't hold oral arguments to avoid disclosing private information. Key details about the probe have emerged in news reports, opinion pieces and a wave of litigation against investigators.

The most ridiculous complaint centered on the investigations lack of arrests and convictions. Hmm, I wonder why…

…stalled for 18 months after a lower court judge…

The tortured logic of the majority conservative justices...:

…found collaboration between campaigns and issue groups is allowed because such groups don't explicitly tell people how to vote.

I guess if the message is the same between the two groups, that’s just a coincidence from like-minded conservatives. And suspicions of lawbreaking, all theoretical, cannot be investigated because that would infringe on the 1^st Amendment:

…it makes clear campaigns can work closely with outside groups … R.J. Johnson simultaneously served as an adviser to the club and Walker's campaign … allowing more political money to flow without the names of donors being disclosed.

Acting as if they were at a bar ranting endlessly about issues not even before their court, the Justices didn’t just trotted out conservative radio talking points, they also played up the “Republicans are victims” card:

Those in the majority raised questions about the way the probe was conducted, with Gableman writing that the search warrants were executed as "pre-dawn, armed, paramilitary-style raids" and Prosser writing in a concurrence that the subpoenas were "so extensive that they make the fruits of the legendary Watergate break-in look insignificant by comparison." The appeals court ruled in favor of prosecutors in the challenge that dealt with technical issues about how the probe was conducted. 

Todd Graves, an attorney for the club and its director, Eric O'Keefe, said in a statement that Chisholm and the accountability board until now "acted like playground bullies without fear of restraint from the courts."

Attorney General Brad Schimel said the ruling "closes a divisive chapter in Wisconsin history."

This thing call “law” is so inconvenient. Maybe Schimel missed the time Scott Walker boasted how he would “divide and conquer” labor in the state. That chapter hasn’t closed.  

Unconstitutional for 4 decades: Thank god we discovered the mistake when the GOP took over:

The Government Accountability Board's Chairman, Gerald Nichol, said the ruling reverses how election officials have interpreted campaign finance laws for four decades. Daniel Weiner, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, said in a statement the court "has made campaign finance law extraordinarily easy to evade. No other court has gone this far and for good reason — it is a misreading of the law and threatens fair and transparent elections."

Balls to the Wall Bizarro World: Connecting the dots on this one was easy. Jaw dropping and outrageous, here's how Wisconsin Manufactureres and Commerce (WMC) bought off the court. 

Step 1: Got their justices elected:

WMC, which has received some funding from the Wisconsin Club for Growth and is the state's largest business lobbying group, spent an estimated $2.2 million for Ziegler; $1.8 million for Gableman; $1.1 million for Prosser; and $500,000 for Roggensack.

Step 2: WMC then went ahead and wrote the Justices recusal rules that wiped "conflict of interest:"

2. In a 4-3 decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court adopted the Realtors and WMC’s petitions. The petitions sought clarification that a judge does not need to seek recusal where it would be based solely on a party in the case sponsoring an independent expenditure or issue advocacy communication in favor of the judge. the and Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (“WMC”) and Wisconsin Realtors Association (“Realtors”) filed separate petitions (that) sought to amend the Judicial Code of Conduct.

Step 3: WMC can now drum up taxpayer outrage over the cost of the public's futile effort to stop business from shredding campaign finance laws, and :

WMC president and CEO Kurt Bauer said, "Taxpayers deserve to know how much of their money was wasted on this unlawful and unconstitutional investigation, and the targets deserve an apology from the prosecutors and GAB regulators who have violated their rights."

Republican Rep. Bill Kramer using campaign money to defend against Sexual Assault Charges.

Why am I not surprised? One of the most arrogant Republican bullies in the legislature, outgoing Rep. Bill Kramer, appears to be breaking the law again. Kramer is using campaign money to defend himself against sexual assault chargers, a personal matter and a legal no-no.

WKOW's  Tony  Galli has the story:

A campaign finance report shows republican lawmaker Bill Kramer used donor funds to pay an attorney $10,000 to defend him against felony, sex assault accusations.

"There is no way on earth that campaign funds should be able to be used by an official to defend that official against sexual assault charges," Executive Director Mike McCabe of the watchdog group Wisconsin Democracy Campaign tells 27 News. McCabe says Kramer's use of campaign funds for this purpose appears to be illegal. "This is totally inconsistent with the plain meaning of state law," McCabe says.

"State law says you can only use campaign funds if you are being investigated for, or being charged with violations of campaign finance and election laws," McCabe says.

Scott Walker's inadvertent Admission of Guilt in John Doe 2?

The Center for Media and Democracy's PR Watch review of the SB 654 drafting files pretty much proves Scott Walker knew he was on the wrong side of the law, and tried to cover up his crime with legislation that would exempt him and his donors from similar activities in the future.

The author of the legislation, the uncomfortably odd Sen. Mary Lazich, was the perfect choice to carry out Walker's legal slight of hand. 

New documents indicate that just weeks after the first subpoenas were issued in Wisconsin's "John Doe" criminal campaign finance probe in October 2013, senate Republicans had begun working to change state law to legalize the activities under investigation.

Legislative Republicans surprised many in the state in March of 2014 when they tried to rush Senate Bill 654 through the legislature to explicitly carve-out an exception to the state's campaign finance statutes for so-called "issue ads" ... The John Doe investigation was never mentioned during testimony on SB 654 , even among the bill's opponents.

Senate elections committee chair Sen. Mary Lazich (R) had begun working on the bill five months earlier, in October 2013 -- just weeks after secret John Doe subpoenas were issued to Wisconsin Club for Growth, the Walker campaign, and other groups.

The timing provides further evidence that the legislation was designed to have an impact on the conduct under investigation in the John Doe. Jay Heck, Executive Director of Common Cause Wisconsin, now says "this is more than coincidental." "I'm just in disbelief at how brazen this is," he said. 

GAB warns, “Candidates could operate secret committees…to run overwhelming and negative advertising…remain above the fray…without limitations on the amounts accepted.”

Sounds kinda scary.

We’re apparently very close to losing total control of our government, all the while conservatives happily jump on board the “money is speech” bandwagon that’s headed straight to an oligarchy.

   

How can you not get that sinking feeling in your gut that something is very wrong here. WSJ:

Kevin Kennedy, the director and general counsel of the state's Government Accountability Board, warned of dire consequences of Judge Gregory Peterson's interpretation of Wisconsin's campaign laws in the (John Doe) probe, which centers around a sweeping investigation into alleged illegal coordination between conservative groups and the recall campaign of Gov. Scott Walker and others.

"A candidate could operate secret committees and direct them to run overwhelming and negative advertising, while the candidate remains above the fray and the public would not know the true source of the contributions and expenditures."

"The public would have no way of knowing who actually was supporting the candidate and to what extent. Without campaign finance disclosure and disclaimers identifying the actual sponsors of campaign advertisement, the public would have no way of tracking whether a donation resulted in favorable treatment by the elected candidate."

"The impact of the instant matter on the public is profound," Kennedy said in the affidavit, which was initially filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals. "In contradiction of the stated legislative purpose of Wisconsin's campaign finance laws, affirming the John Doe judge's interpretation of Wisconsin law regarding coordination would result in candidate's direct control over millions of dollars of undisclosed corporate and individual contributions without limitation on the amounts accepted.

Even the conservative activist Supreme Court in Citizens United encouraged finance disclosure laws as a remedy to the corrupting power of money.

Republicans deny Deception, happy to usher in Pay-to-Play Government!

Folks, it can happen here. We've been sold down the river:

jsonline-Patrick Marley: State election officials cleared the way Wednesday for lobbyists to deliver campaign checks from their clients and political action committees at any time, including while lawmakers deliberate the state budget and other major legislation … the state Government Accountability Board unanimously ruled that a law approved in March eliminated that prohibition … to hand off big campaign checks from special interest groups as legislators decide whether to tighten or loosen regulations affecting them.

Nice clean transparent government? I know that in a few years after Walker has left office, under a Democratic governor, Republicans will say they never did agree with such a corrupting law or bizarre interpretation.

Public outrage over the obvious pay to play proposal forced the Republicans to promised to pull that part of their bill...supposedly. But they tricked us:

…after introducing the bill, senators said they were backing off from that position, moving up the date only … But in recent weeks, officials (the GAB) determined the law said something other than what legislators claimed they intended.

It’s the old Republican bait and switch, and they pulled in on their own constituents too. 

...in a letter this week to the accountability board, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) urged the board to adopt the latest (pay-to-play) position of the Legislative Council.

Under the threat of being disbanded and replaced with a more partisan group overseeing elections, the GAB made the only decision they could:

WSJ: Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, accused lawmakers of ... bullying the GAB into agreeing with their interpretation of the law, despite a drafting error made in crafting the measure … the GAB originally said a drafting error in the legislation banned lobbyists from ever passing along others’ contributions to candidates.

But that interpretation drew criticism from Republican leaders in the Legislature and others … Vos and Fitzgerald argued that the language of the measure allows lobbyists to make most campaign contributions at any time … “We believe that this is the only logical interpretation of the statute, and fear that other interpretations could lead to confusion, inadvertent non-compliance, and costly litigation against the state,” Vos and Fitzgerald wrote.

That interpretation is different than how lawmakers described the measure as it was passing the Legislature and being signed into law. At the time, they said it was widening the time window for lobbyists’ contributions but leaving other rules the same.

They lied, and have found a new way to deceptively pass laws with no political blowback from voters.  

National Review revs up base claiming Dems Constitutional Amendment will "lock their critics out of the public square."

The National Review is in full panic mode, or it’s doing what it does best, fear monger.  

I especially enjoyed their agonizing effort to make money sound like an essential part of “free speech.”

Displeased with recent legal victories in which free speech has prevailed over limitations on political speech imposed by Congress … Senate Democrats have introduced a constitutional amendment that would not only set aside the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence and invest Congress with virtually unlimited power to regulate the political activism of private citizens, alone or in groups, but would also give the federal government and the states the power to shut down newspapers, television stations, and radio networks that displease them.

There’s so much projection here you can choke on it. After reading that first paragraph, the base is probably foaming at the mouth at this point, or will after this additional nudge:

This is an all-out assault on the First Amendment and an act of vandalism against the Constitution.

To many of us, it’s called campaign finance reform, and while we had it in place, the nation didn't collapse or shred the constitution. That’s the job of our activist conservative Supreme Court.

The amendment they are contemplating would … in effect repeal the First Amendment.

Now suspend the idea that this broad amendment would any affect on Democratic contributors:

What they object to is money moving through channels that do not confer advantages upon Democrats. The Left is comfortably ensconced in the unions, the public sector, the educational bureaucracies, and the traditional media, and groups such as Citizens United and True the Vote and thousands of others create new competition in the political marketplace. This amendment is not about cleaning up elections — it’s about the Democrats’ seeking to lock their critics out of the public square.

Now return to the idea that the amendment would indeed have an affect on both parties:

The question here is not the idea of a constitutional amendment but the content of this proposed amendment, which would place virtually all political activism — and most political speech of any consequence — under federal regulation. It is a cynical and dangerous attack on the First Amendment, and should be met not only with resistance but with contempt — for the amendment itself, and for the sort of power-mad men who would propose it. 

The power mad men? Democrats? Try the 300 to 400 million/billionaires who are already power mad. Who attended the Adelson primary...?

Incidental Governor Walker not pushing "lobbyists to hand off their clients' campaign checks to lawmakers during the legislative session."

Avoiding the appearance that he approves of lobbyist donations to lawmakers on taxpayer time, our incidental governor Scott Walker is irked he's being distracted from creating jobs, just to appease his legislative pirates:

Other inconvenient bill signings...

AP: Walker says campaign bills not on his radar: Gov. Scott Walker says he is not pushing a pair of Republican-sponsored bills affecting campaign donations and spending regulations. Walker says he has not been engaged on the bills and instead has been focused on issues related to tax relief, economic development and worker training.

The inconvenient adventures of our incidental governor include this, this, this, this, this.

Free at last, Republican Voters to let Lobbyists Pick their Leaders.

Watch out when Republicans or their lobbyists say “they’re only ‘clarifying’ existing law.”

Mike Wittenwyler, a lawyer who advises lobbyists and campaign groups, said the bills simply clarify existing law or make it more fair.

That’s called changing law…rewriting it so to speak.

The leader of the state Senate Scott Fitzgerald and Sen. Mary Lazich wants to rewrite campaign finance law to allow lobbyists to hand off their clients' campaign checks to lawmakers and other elected officials during the legislative session.

What could wrong under a system like that? Rugged freedom loving individuals, you know…conservative voters, see nothing wrong with turning their elections over to corporate lobbyists. This fiercely independent group of citizens will vote for whoever their party chooses to “lead” them.

Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign wrote: “A sudden, surprise attack on the ability of Wisconsin citizens to know who is trying to influence their vote at election time was launched without notice yesterday. Senate Bill 654 would take Wisconsin in exactly the opposite direction that the rest of the nation is headed in the wake of the 2010 Citizens United vs. F.E.C. decision. 

All other states are headed toward more disclosure of outside money. Eight of nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices in the Citizens United decision urged Congress and the States to enact stronger disclosure laws. Senate Bill 654 would cause less disclosure … and much more dark money in Wisconsin.

Is there a single Wisconsin citizen outside of the Capitol who has ever said we need more campaign contributions from lobbyists in our elections? Does anyone seriously believe we need lobbyists influencing public policy with campaign contributions more than they already do? With this secretive, sudden maneuver, Senators Lazich and Fitzgerald are hoping not many Wisconsinites will notice…” 

Subway Gate ends where else, in Walker-sha County. Ryan and Romney Free Subs to Voters Okay.

Want to know how Republican law looks. Check out the following amazing justification for bribing voters with subs, a clear campaign violation. The DA actually said, "the fact that there appeared to be plenty of sandwiches left over reflects that it is unlikely that any significant number of uninvited members of the public helped themselves to free lunch." DA Brad Schimel can't be serious. 

Waukesha Patch-Sarah Millard: Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan Cleared in Election Day Sub Bribe Allegations: Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel declines to file charges against Republican presidential candidate, saying that the intent of the event was to provide lunch to campaign supporters.

A video edited by the state Democratic Party shows Romney leading a rally and telling supporters to go vote, and, “If you want another sandwich, there are more back there.” State law prohibits offering something valued at more than $1 in exchange for a vote. However, in his decision, Schimel disagreed that it was election bribery:

“There is nothing unusual about a candidate telling people to vote on Election Day. It is common knowledge that on Election Day candidates stop in at local diners, senior centers and other places the public gathers to remind people to vote. That is what candidates do on Election Day.

“In his interactions with people in the sandwich line and during his speech, Governor Romney acknowledges the fact that it is likely that many present have already voted.  The candidate knows he is talking to a group that is politically involved, and are likely voters.  The encouragement to tell a friend can not be characterized as offensive to the law.

“In his speech, Governor Romney indicates that there were more sandwiches available.  The organizers paid for 100 sandwiches, but as they noted, less than 100 people attended the event. Event organizers concede that it is possible that an uninvited member of the public managed to obtain a free sandwich. However, the fact that there appeared to be plenty of sandwiches left over reflects that it is unlikely that any significant number of uninvited members of the public helped themselves to free lunch.  Even if they had, the evidence demonstrates that the intention of the organizers was only to provide lunch to invited volunteers and supporters.  Thus, no one who was not otherwise inclined to vote was intentionally offered any inducement to do so.”