Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Capitalism and the Law
Considering that starbucks and Krispy Kreme both have lobbyists who push for various trade and wage policies, I don't consider this unreasonable.
Starbucks promised a free coffee and Krispy Kreme offered a free donut to anyone who showed up with an "I voted" sticker, but their giveaways could prove to be costly endeavors, for a reason other than the one you would expect. An article in today's Atlanta Journal Constitution, titled "Trouble brews for voter freebies." warned about the possible legal consequences for sugar-seeking voters....¶ 12:51 PM
In Washington State, Election officials told the CBS affiliate, KIRO 7 that rewarding voters with free coffee is illegal.Nick Handy, director of elections,said there is a federal statue that prohibits any reward for voting....
Comments:
<< Home
I'm confused. I understand that giving a reward for voting a certain way should be illegal. However, I don't see why advertising of casting a secret ballot should be punished. To do so might mean that providing "I Voted" stickers itself (a reward for voting) might be illegal.
Actually all of our elections are based on hope of gaining a reward (implementation of future policies) if you vote a certain way. I see little reason why non-partisan rewards for the act of voting itself should be punished unless the reward is restricted to those who voted a certain way.
Grandpa
Actually all of our elections are based on hope of gaining a reward (implementation of future policies) if you vote a certain way. I see little reason why non-partisan rewards for the act of voting itself should be punished unless the reward is restricted to those who voted a certain way.
Grandpa
# posted by 
: 11:30 AM
: 11:30 AM
The thought is that encouraging a certain group of people to vote by rewarding them is a slippery slope. What if you start target a specific ethnic group or gun owners with giveaways?
While I see little practical damage done by a cup of coffee or a doughnut I don't think that the precedent is one we should ignore.
While I see little practical damage done by a cup of coffee or a doughnut I don't think that the precedent is one we should ignore.
The law seems rather silly, for the reason stated here by Grandpa, But you'd think Starbucks would have enough money and common sense to, you know, hire a lawyer before making up such a plan.
Post a Comment
<< Home
