The facts about the latest Watergate-like caper are basically the following: The Spanish-language network Univision, known for having a fine record of encouraging voter participation, turned down a paid advertisement from the Republican-backed group "Latinos for Reform."
The Spanish-language message addressing Latinos was, "Don't vote" because the Democratic majority failed to introduce, much less pass, immigration reform.
Robert de Posada, a longtime Republican operative, sometimes spokesman and talking head, was responsible for the $80,000 ad placement.
De Posada was promoting anti-democratic activity, even though he subsequently garbled his message to make it seem like it wasn't a pro-Republican urging but just asking Latinos to not cast ballots. Still, this kind of Halloween trick-or-treat style campaigning is unworthy of any election in the United States.
So where does this anti-democratic mentality come from?
It comes from the Watergate playbook.
Back in 1972, a secret operation by a group calling itself the Brown Mafia, coordinated between Richard Nixon's White House and his reelection committee, and the GOP to leverage Republican support and suppress opposition. Their strategy and how they did it was fully disclosed by the U.S. Senate Watergate Committee looking into campaign activities, and whose revelations led to Nixon's resignation.
A memorandum was uncovered, authored by Alex Armendariz, a staffer at the re-election committee, who advised three ways to win large swatches of the Latino vote, leading to an operation called "The Responsiveness Program."
Step one was manipulating the bureaucracy to offer federal aid to target communities and take credit for it. Step two was to get Hispanics to run as Republicans, who would take credit for Republican activism.
So far, the first was questionable, ethically and legally. The other was reasonable if the parties were unknowing.
Step three discouraged Latinos from voting.
Through grants and contracts, target communities were pinpointed for funds, to create "ambivalence," intending to make it seem there was no candidate worth voting for.
That was done by giving covert money to disaffected groups, like Raza Unida, to run candidates to water down the Democratic vote. All of these activities were extensively documented in my 2003 book, "The Rise of Hispanic Political Power."
Were it not for the U.S. Senate Watergate Committee and its many revelations about the entire enterprise that went by the rubric "Watergate," this miserable episode of our history would have gone unknown and unremembered.
As there were bigger fish (like the "plumbers," the burglars for which Watergate is best remembered), no indictments were brought against the Brown Mafia, although the principal characters left government service, or were shown the door, or became minor, low-level characters in future politics. Of course, some were guiltier than others, some semi-innocent. Nixon even fired the two highest-ranking Latino appointed officials of the time.
Sen. Joseph Montoya of New Mexico, who served on the Watergate committee, called the entire scheme an "incredible insult."
It was that and more.
Jill Ellen Abramson, in The New York Times on Oct 16, is technically correct in saying that the 2010 campaign infractions are legal because secret money contributions are allowed due to the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. But she is not digging deep enough to connect how covert funding leads to covert anti-democratic activity.
The only reasonable next step -- to nip this hydra again -- is to reopen the Watergate hearings. Have de Posada and his sponsors testify. Make the contributors of the $80,000 come forward.
Witnesses under oath need to face the public, answering committee questions like, "How is the ad not an anti-democratic activity? Do you believe in elections and citizen participation? If they were sincere, why didn't the ad ask ALL voters, not just Hispanics, to refrain from voting? Doesn't suppressing the vote damage our democracy?
To find out exactly what happened, the commission should follow the money.
Jose de la Isla writes a weekly commentary for Hispanic Link News Service. E-mail him at joseisla3@yahoo.com. For more stories visit scrippsnews.com
Rhonda posted at 2:40 pm on Wed, Oct 27, 2010.
Suppress the Latino vote? It was a conservative Latino group behind the ads, not a so-called racist group which the liberals are famously known for using as an accusation or attack.
As far as the Watergate playbook, come on! Liberals do this sort of thing all the time claiming for instance that they want to protect the Constitution when they actually have no respect for our founding documents or the men who contributed to it's drafting. Example: Arizona Taxpayers Association, a group which doesn't exist but advocates against all of the legislation which actually protects the taxpayers from big government initiatives. This group has some real far left members such as, Bob Grossfield a liberal activist who pushes a "progressive" agenda (look up what the progressive movement espouses, it reads like socialism), Jim McLaughlin who is the president of UFCW local 99 who would like nothing more than to eliminate personal responsibility and individual success, Kirsten Sinema who is also a "progressive" (which pretty much amounts to someone who doesn't respect the Constitution because she's never read it nor has read about this country's history). On these placards displayed on several street corners they claim to "protect the Constitution" but their encouragement to vote "no" on these propositions is the very antithesis of what they claim. As you know, the Obamacare bill will force every American to purchase health insurance. The federal government has overstepped it's constitutional boundaries with this provision. Proposition 106 will give Arizonans their power of choice back yet, this group which claims to protect our Constitution is advocating a "no" vote on 106. Proposition 113 will require all votes to be through secret ballot. If a citizen fears losing his job over the choice he made on a ballot, Proposition 106 will keep his vote secret. Many Unions are behind the "no" vote on this initiative because they want to intimidate union members and other employees who may not want a particular Union to represent them. Proposition 301 was written to reverse the diversion of funds taken from the "Growing Smarter" fund set aside in 1998. Activists wish to remove funds from the education program to close public lands from public use. We've all learned how badly situations develop when funds are diverted from one area and used for another. Case in point, the funds raided from Social Security were used for other pet projects which left the SS program broke. Or, the Obama health care bill removing nearly $1 trillion from Medicare programs to pay for "health care for all". For the life of me, I can't understand why Americans don't bother to do a little research before making an important decision. How about the banking collapse? The President and the media are trying to blame that on the previous president as if he passed legislation that de-regulated the banking industry. What ACTUALLY caused the banking collapse was first, the housing bubble, the Democrat initiative which FORCED banks to give unsecured home loans to people who couldn't afford a loan and finally, Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac are responsible for taking on those loans which made the taxpayer responsible to pay the debt. Do a little research, please!