Cliff LyonDrop A Dime on a Republican
Update: Emily’s opponent has bought her name on Google too! Click AWAY! 
A little known (in his own state) Utah State Senate republican candidate in the first real political race of his life, has taken the well know (as infantile) tact of registering his opponents name, Emily Hollingshead, in the pay-per-click services of several popular search engines. In this case, he’s paying ten cents each time you click his site link after searching for “Emily Hollingshead†On Yahoo.com or MSN.
IF you click here or here you’ll notice his campaign site comes up first…rather obvious, rather pitiful, and rather representative of what we should expect from him as a political leader. Dennis Stowell, “Stuffy†to his friends, has been a County Commissioner in Iron County for the last 10 years, but now hopes to take over the District Senate 28 seat being vacated by Tom Hatch of Panguitch.
Turns out, for “Stuffyâ€, shenanigans are nothing new. A small firestorm erupted in the Republican Party locally over the way Sen. Tom Hatch filed to run for re-election and then timed his withdrew with Commissioner Dennis Stowell’s filing. KCPW story here.
Some Republican Party officers saw it as a conspiracy to prevent other prospective republicans from throwing their hats in the ring. But what Hatch and Stowell is not illegal or unusual, just really disengenuous. Some outspoken the Republicans see it a dishonest procedure that prevented good the good republican voters of district 28 from having a voice.
Hatch was a once popular Senator who lost his bid for lieutenant governor in 2004. When Dennis was asked why he did what he did, Stuffy replied, “Tom wanted someone to represent his district who shared the same values as him [sic].†Apparently Tom Hatch’s preference for his replacement is more important than the peoples’.
It won’t take long for Stuffy to figure out why more experienced politicos don’t bother with the search engine game when he discovers his credit card has been charged several hundred dollars on his next statement thanks to me and other friends of Emily.
Let us click away in childish delight on Stuffy Stowell’s paid listing here or here as a symbolic gesture of dissent every time we see or hear evidence as we watch the nightly news, of the latest republican ploy designed to distract us from the real issues facing our this country.
Where else can one find a physical outlet for our total frustration with the imbalance in policy debate that results from our republican heavy state legislature? Hey, and even if you don’t know “Stuffy†and you don’t live in Senate district 28 (Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard, and Eastern Washington Counties) you can still stick it to Chris Buttars, for being a homophobic creep and taking it out on school kids, or John Valentine for punishing Governor Huntsman on the backs of disadvantaged Utah children who can’t afford dental care, by sending one fewer republican back to the Senate in the fall by doing your part however small, to help raise awareness.
We have a unique opportunity to send Emily Hollingshead up to The Hill so desperately in need of a fresh young face with the sensibilities of a good Utah-raised LDS WOMAN.
TIP: After clicking here or here, as you click on “Stuffy’s†paid-per-click (.10 cents) on the seach term Emily Hollingshead, hold down your CNTRL key, so his site opens in a new window. Its much less work.
Update: KVNU For The People did a program about this story.
September 5th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Opps! I just heard Bush say “fight’em here or fight’em over there”. That’s worth 20 clicks! Yeeeee!
September 5th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Heh…just ran up $10 on his tab. It is quite satisfying! I sure hope it really is working. Thanks for the tip!
September 5th, 2006 at 8:27 pm
C-Spam is a little slow tonight. Just some formerly pro-Bush guy who worked for the state department and the white house and Colin Powell before and after 9/11 and subsequesntly resigned when he saw the Cheney effect override the professionals in favor of some sort of experiement (which has gone terribly wrong).
So I think I’ll just click away on Dennis’ site, simulataneous with a F___ Cheney yell.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:21 pm
I’m up to $25 bucks. Gotta go to bed.
I will pray that Bush soesn’t inadvertantly eat the rat=poison Ann Coutler suggested putting in Judge Stevens pudding.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
A rather cheap political stunt by the Republican. I’m sure we’ll be reading about this in Rolly’s column. I am glad we can count on Rolly to tell our side of the story.
I am upset, however, at the following comment that YOU wrote:
“We have a unique opportunity to send Emily Hollingshead up to The Hill so desperately in need of a fresh young face with the sensibilities of a good Utah-raised LDS WOMAN.”
We would all be rightfully offended if a Republican were to say such a thing.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:30 pm
You are right, Cornholio, we would all come unglued if a Republican were to say such a thing.
I think what Cliff means is that we need more women in the Utah legislature, and this particular woman happens to be LDS AND Democrat, which might just shake things up a bit, especially since she is from Southern Utah, where the good ole boys rule and Democrat is a dirty word.
I can imagine it is not easy to run as an LDS Democrat from Southern Utah.
September 6th, 2006 at 5:42 am
You both raise excellent points. It never occured to me, that I can get away with saying something as a Gentile for which a member might be pre-judged. Hmmm.
Anyway, Anon is right. When I said, “LDS WOMAN” (and Democrat), I was thinking about Emily AS “tough as nails”.
Someone with “special authority” needs to start reminding the high priests on The Hill what it means to be a good and charitable Christian, and it might just take and LDS woman.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:41 am
Cliff
According to Dan Jones if more LDS Woman had of voted Rocky Anderson would not have been re-elected. Yes we need much more LDS women voting but contrary to your belief it will not be a boon to Democrats.
September 6th, 2006 at 6:54 am
Ken, I don’t know about the “not be a boon to Democrats” comment. I think you’d be surprised, if more LDS women were active in politics we might have “softer” republicans on the hill and yes, we might have more LDS women at the capitol. And some of those would probably *be* democrats. It’s hard to know, though, since the majority of 20-30 something LDS women do not vote.
September 6th, 2006 at 11:02 am
I agree with anonymous, whom I wish would use his/her real name.
I also think if more LDS women voted, they would reflect a more thoughtful and less tribal consituency.
Ken needs to consider, that his own wife might not vote the way he says, but he would never know it, because if she were more liberal, she certainly wouldn’t dare tell him.
September 6th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
[...] This action was noted at OneUtah.org by fellow contributer Cliff Lyon, who invited readers to: “…click away in childish delight on Stuffy Stowell’s paid listing here or hereas a symbolic gesture of dissent every time we see or hear evidence as we watch the nightly news, of the latest republican ploy designed to distract us from the real issues facing our this country. Where else can one find a physical outlet for our total frustration with the imbalance in policy debate that results from our republican heavy state legislature? Hey, and even if you don’t know “Stuffy†and you don’t live in Senate district 28 (Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, Millard, and Eastern Washington Counties) you can still stick it to Chris Buttars, for being a homophobic creep and taking it out on school kids, or John Valentine for punishing Governor Huntsman on the backs of disadvantaged Utah children who can’t afford dental care, by sending one fewer republican back to the Senate in the fall by doing your part however small, to help raise awareness.” [...]
September 6th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Cliff
My wife tells me she votes for the other guy just to cancel out my vote. She’s joking of course….I hope! (c;
September 6th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Hey Cliff,
Thanks. I just learned from one of my campaign volunteers that this is now also happening on Google - wow! I’m actually having a nice hearty laugh.
September 6th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Actually… the more I think about this, I am really glad to know that my opponent has the campaign cash to pay for my good name, while I am struggling to just get enough dough together so I can purchase my signs. Life aint fair! :-)
September 6th, 2006 at 7:01 pm
Quit cher winin’ Em, remember if god wants you to win there’ll be no stoppin him/her/it!
September 7th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Dang! I clicked the site so many times my mouse broke.
September 21st, 2006 at 6:31 pm
[...] And I’ve written about “Stuffy†before (here). Hey look; it’s not like these guys are bad people, but if politics as usual had a face… [...]
October 6th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
Those ad buys are perfectly legal, and probably a smart choice. What you’re encouraging here is called click fraud. It is a growing problem in the search engine industry, and it is deeply unethical, at the very least. I am more inclined to support Emily, but if this is how her supporters behave, I’m not so sure.
October 6th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Eric,
“Smart choice?” It’s an insult to the political system. It’s an abuse of a financial advantage, lazy, and unoriginal. That’s why good candidates don’t do it.
“Perfectly legal” is a red-herring. So are no-bid contracts and back-dated options.
But most of all, it does nothing to support the concept of political participation; the single biggest problem facing our country.
Secondly, (just between you and me) repetitive clicks do not charge his account.
Lastly, the idea of voting for Emily’s opponent because you do not like how some of her supporters behave is well…your choice.
October 6th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Cliff,
Buying competitive keywords is very common in search marketing. The practice is not generally considered to be unethical (though some people and companies don’t like it). That’s exactly what’s going on here. What his ads say is “there is an alternative you should look at”, and there is little stopping her from doing the same. I doubt the keywords cost all that much money. I would be shocked to find that the search volume would lead to costs even remotely comparable to making campaign signs, for instance. I don’t see anything morally wrong with it.
Secondly, (just between you and me), I understand that Google makes efforts to detect and eliminate click fraud, but that does not excuse the fraud, nor does it excuse your encouragement of it. Any kind of fraud is bad, but fraud committed with the express intent of damaging a political campaign is an assault on the spirit of democracy that you profess to love so much.
This post, and the follow up comments are hypocritical no matter how you attempt to spin it. Emily responded to your post, and failed to speak out against the click fraud being perpetrated in her name. Any candidate who condones this behavior is not a candidate I can support.
October 6th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
You voted for Bush both times didn’t you?
What gave you away you ask?
Your hyperbolic use of the words “unethical”, “morally” , and “fraud.”
…and the terrorists are lurking right around the corner.
October 6th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
I absolutely did not vote for Bush. This post simply exemplifies everything that is wrong with local politics. We probably agree on many issues, but here you take a small step into a gray area, and jump headlong into clearly unethical territory in response. This sort of bickering and escalation is not the least bit productive — particularly considering the tiny impact that the searches themselves are likely to have on the race. Her campaign would be far better off setting up meetings in her district so that voters have the chance to meet her and get to know her better. Wouldn’t that be better than dragging both candidates through the mud over petty little issues?
October 6th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
I didn’t “click away”. Please vote for Emily
October 6th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
I mentioned this little incident on my blog. I invite Emily to clarify her position on this issue. Does this ad buy really justify click fraud? Is it funny to suggest it as an appropriate response? It looks like some of Emily’s supporters were more than happy to jump on the bandwagon and actually engage in an activity that is a felony in many jurisdictions.
October 6th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Eric, I applaud you for running. But I find it curious that you should jump on the anti-mudslinging bandwagon and then start mudslinging.
Emily is not mudslinging I AM.
And now you are.
How do you feel about hand gun control?
October 6th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Yes, I am mudslinging. I’m mudslinging the mudslingers. I have no qualms about admitting that this sort of thing gets under my skin. I’m not the least bit afraid to stand up and say, “hey, what you’re doing here is wrong,” particularly when it seems that nobody else recognizes it. I’m also giving Emily a chance to stand up for what’s right, and divorce her campaign from association with you and anyone else who thinks it’s okay to engage in this sort of activity in a political election.
As for guns, sure, let’s get side-tracked by another political rant. I’m game for a full-on debate.
The short answer:
Guns don’t kill. People do.
When guns are against the law, only criminals will have guns.
I have had four friends die from gunshot wounds, but if they didn’t have guns, it would have been knives, or ropes, poison, or cars. Most fatal gun injuries are suicides. When somebody decides that they want to die, and they are really committed to it, they will find a way. Guns are attractive because they seem quick and relatively painless compared to other alternatives.
If you want to address fatal gun injuries, why not address America’s mental health crisis, or encourage more economic development and education programs in neighborhoods plagued by gun violence? There are many things we can do to make a measurable impact that don’t involve prohibition, and those programs that work should be pursued vigorously.
October 6th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
So the answer is you don’t support hand gun control?
October 6th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
The answer is I don’t support hand gun prohibition, or so much control that it amounts to prohibition.
October 6th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
But I do support other efforts to reduce gun injuries.
October 6th, 2006 at 9:04 pm
Eric, I’m not piling on, because many of the things you are reflecting are right on. It’s that in your last paragraph, you hit one of my peeve points, you speculated about the many things, programs, etc that we could do to remedy social problems. We ought to be doing them and we could do them and everybody would be oh so much better off, IF, all the money, brainpower, and other resources weren’t being diverted into this insane war. Just sayin. Please forgive my seeming one-notedness. Thanks.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
Caveat Emptor:
This insane war is the subject of my last five blog posts. I describe, in no uncertain terms, my feelings about the war and my misgivings over whether or not we should even be in Iraq, let alone on the cusp of invading Iran.
October 7th, 2006 at 6:11 am
No aspersions cast, and sorry I haven’t been over to your blog yet, but will. What I meant in my post, but didn’t say, was that I agree with you that spiking polls and the like only helped to mishape the reality, as well as to lower our standards. Hope you understand. Then, I just couldn’t help myself, I simply had to shoot more holes in this admin.
October 7th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Can I jump in real quick and just point out that Bush supporters suck?
October 8th, 2006 at 2:59 am
Comments posted to my blog:
I can certainly understand your opinion on the click-fraud issue. If click-fraud is illegal, then in no way should it be encouraged.
However, I do think we need to recognize the difference between what is legal and what is moral. Just because the sort of search engine ad buys are legal and common does not make them ethical. The idea that you can pay to have searches hijacked to propogate your message is a rather disingenuous method by which to publicize your presence.
# posted by Derek : 11:24 AM
Derek, the searches are not being “Hijacked”. In all cases, it is clear which results are paid for, and which are the “natural” search results. They are clearly separated and labeled.
# posted by Eric Hamilton : 11:33 AM
The presence of the sponsored links does not diminish her listing in any way whatsoever. Honestly, I’m mildly surprised not to see the generic “Buy Emily Hollingshead on Ebay!” or whatever bulk robot ad buys you’d normally see on a non-competitive search term. For example, I just searched for “turtle soup” and found this ad:
Turtle Soup
Get new Turtle Soup
on eBay Express. Happy Shopping!
http://www.eBayExpress.com
October 8th, 2006 at 3:02 am
P.S. I’m glad it’s new. I’d hate to buy USED turtle soup!
October 8th, 2006 at 8:42 am
I find the robot ad buys just as questionable as Stowell’s purchase.
October 8th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
It’s okay to buy TV commercials. It’s okay to buy ads in newspapers. It’s okay to buy road signs. It’s okay to commit click fraud, but it’s not okay to buy ads on a search engine? Interesting questions.
October 11th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Since this post is primarly about me, I need to chime in.
First of all, I apologize for not getting here sooner. I have been more concerned with walking my district and meeting with voters. I have had meetings every single night for the past two weeks, so I have not paid much attention to the blogs.
Getting down to business… For the record - I do not condone click fraud. I am a website designer / internet marketing specialist and I caution my customers against this very thing on a regular basis. In addition, I also advise my clients not to purchase competitors names, because it is not ethical, and it is petty.
When Cliff first brought this entire issue to my attention, I was slightly amused that my opponent had purchased my name on all three search engines. I didn’t understand why he felt the need to do it. As time has gone on and this story has appeared all over the internet, I can’t understand why he is *still* purchasing my name. He has been given the chance to explain himself and to also stop doing it, but it is still out there.
Also, we’re not dealing with a product. We’re dealign with my own name… not *his* name. If he were the “underdog” around here, I might understand the need to do this. But he is the guy with the (R) next to his name. He doesn’t have to do anything in this race, and he can still win. I know I’m in an uphill battle, but I have done my very best to keep the race clean and straightforward.
Since I am all for doing “the right thing,” at this time I will ask my friends and supporters to please stop clicking on my opponent’s website when my name is searched. My supporters *are* outraged by the fact that this is not his name. Many have told me I should buy *his* name, but I’m not into tit for tat.
The whole thing is really quite petty… on both sides of this issue.
October 27th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
This more fun than solatire. I’m just picturing green backs flying out of his purse. I’m up $25, it’s go to be my pasttime.