Franken (Aaron Landry) and Coleman (WDCpix)

Nearly seven months after election day, Minnesota’s unresolved Senate race sees another milestone today — and a chance to move closer to filling the state’s second seat. The state Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Norm Coleman’s bid to overturn a trial court’s ruling that Al Franken won the U.S. Senate election by a margin of 312 votes. Team Coleman wants the case to be sent back to the lower court under orders to consider 4,400 rejected absentee ballots for possible inclusion in the vote tally. If the state’s high court rules in Franken’s favor, Coleman may take his appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

After the jump: watch live video of the arguments, which begin at 9 a.m., via The Uptake.

Elmer L. Andersen (ca. 1965), by Edward Vincent Brewer. MHS

Gov. Elmer L. Andersen’s full statement of Saturday, March 23, 1963, as printed in the Minneapolis Tribune the following day:

After the most careful consideration I have decided not to appeal the ruling of the district judge panel. There is no justification for appeal simply because the Supreme Court has already made its position clear on certain categories of irregular ballots and there is no way to judge the remainder so as to reverse the result of the lower court. 

This is the  anlysis of my counsel, Messers. Kyle and Morton, and Recount Director Tom Swain, all of whom have done a perfectly magnificent job in my behalf. 

To the very many people who have urged me in the most strenuous terms to appeal to the Supreme Court, I may say with equal emphasis, that were there the slightest basis for expecting a reveral of judgment, I most certainly [would] appeal. 

On the other hand, when a competent and fair tribunal, which the district judge panel most certainly has been, renders a judgment that skilled representatives of mine feel cannot be successfully challenged in a higher court, then no one could expect me to appeal in order to gain time or keep possession of this office until the last possible moment. 

When the canvassing board declared me the winner and the contest started, my supervisors and I were confident the final result would be victory for me by an increased margin. 

I decided to carry on all the duties and responsibilities of governor as best I could, under the circumstances, and this I have done. 

As a result, legislative and administrative programs have moved ahead in a positive way. 

To those who wonder why the recount changed the original result, I would point out that there is about the same percentage of irregular ballots among Republican voters as DFL. I had 15,000 more paper ballot votes than my opponent, thus the opposition had 15,000 more chances to find irregular ballots than our people did. I am confident my recounters found every vote there was to be found. 

Actually no one can know for sure who had the most voters’ support last Nov. 6th as more tha 1,300 ballots were thrown out, and the established margin of victory is only 91. 

To those who suggest that this then could only be resolved by a run-off election, the answer is that there is no provision in our constitution or statutory law for such a solution. This is a matter for legislative consideration to apply to future elections. 

To those who wonder why it has taken so long to decide this election, may I say it is only because it is so close. Out of this experience every citizen can gain a heightened appreciation of each vote and awareness for the need of casting it properly, and suggestions for improving election lawss and procedures. 

I will not attempt at this time to reveiw and assess all the accomplishements of my administration, but I know there has been solid achievement in the fields of human rights, goverment services, jobs and economic growth (particularly for northeastern Minnesota), traffic safety, improvement in the state’s finances, natural resource development and future planning. 

It is particularly gratifying to have won for the people a right to vote on a taconite amendment for which I fought so long, and at times, almost alone. 

To me it has been a fruitful and rewarding two and one quarter years. I am thankful to state employees, department heads, legislators, study group members and all others who have contributed time, thought and energy to provide such substantial gain in so many areas, in so short a time. 

May I say a special word of thanks to all members of the news media, with whom I have always enjoyed working, for their diligence in presenting news of Minnesota state government. 

Monday I will file a waiver of waiting period with the Ramsey County District Court which will permit a certificate of election to be issued to Mr. Rolvaag. 

My staff will be here Monday morning until Mr. Rolvaag has qualified and his people arrive. I have written Mr. Rolvaag my beset wishes and placed my executive secretary, Mr. Milton Knoll, in communication with Mr. William Shovell, so there can be an orderly transition. 

As to my own future plans, I will be consulting with my loyal and devoted staff on their relocation. It will not be my plan to return to the active management of H.B. Fuller Co., although I will return to my office there and assume a position to be determined. My main activity will continue to be in the field of community and public  service as it has been for some years. 

I would particularly like to puruse the long-range New Dimension Natural Resource program which we have launched. 

Today ends one chapter, admittedly a shorter chapter than I had intended, but there are more to be written. I am disappointed but not the least discouraged: I am defeated but not the least disheartened. I am deeply grateful to the people of Minnesota for the privilege that has been mine to serve as governor of this great state which means so much to me, and to the thousands of unselfish workers for better government who have given me their support. 

Our son, Tony, and his wife, Alice, are home from New York for this weekend, as is my college son, Julian. With Emily and my wife, Eleanor, who has given so much to me, our family is united. 

Our love has deepened and broadened through this experience. We are thankful we have retained good health, and we continue to be humbly grateful for the rich blessings of God that we have so abundantly received.

“I think we are done,” Franken attorney Marc Elias told reporters after the counting. “It’s no more complicated than this … More Minnesotans voted for Al Franken than for Norm Coleman.”

Asked about Coleman’s pledge to battle on, Elias said, “I don’t think there is much of a case on appeal, candidly.”

Coleman attorney Ben Ginsberg said he was “saddened and disappointed,” adding that there should have been 10 times more ballots counted — a reference to the Coleman camp’s submission of 4,800 uncounted absentee ballots they wanted the court to review.

“We will be appealing this to the Minnesota Supreme Court,” he said, as soon as the court issues its order based on today’s tally, which in Ginsberg’s estimation could come as early as this week.

Coleman’s appeal will make three claims, Ginsberg said. Voters received unequal treatment under the law when similar ballots received different treatment by local officials in different parts of the state. The election-contest judges issued a “new set of rules” with their Feb. 13 ruling restricting the types of ballots they would review. And those restrictions meant that many ballots cast on Nov. 4 fell into now-illegal categories.

Franken gained votes because in the narrow “universe” of ballots the three-judge panel agreed to review, Ginsberg said, “there were more Franken precincts.”

While his staffers tore into sealed ballot envelopes on the courtroom floor, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie sat in the second row of the courtroom gallery, looking like a man not fully at ease. He seemed happier afterward when he told reporters, “I think we’re getting much closer to the end today. This was an important next step.”

Asked if he saw an impending split between himself and Gov. Tim Pawlenty over whether to sign an election certificate, Ritchie said no. Pawlenty has signaled that he may not sign an election certificate for months — longer than a state Supreme Court would likely take to rule, suggesting a potential conflict with Ritchie. State law says both the governor and secretary of state must sign the certificate.

“I assume we are both going to follow the order of the Minnesota Supreme Court,” Ritchie said. The Supreme Court has said a certificate should be issued “at the end of the state court process.”

In reference to talk of an appeal to the federal judicial system, Ritchie said the U.S. Supreme Court “is not the state court.”

Neither Franken or Coleman was in court today. Coleman, who has made frequent appearances during the course of the seven-week trial, had another engagement, Ginsberg said. But each side’s coterie of attorneys kept their legal-eagle eyes peeled for anything untoward, but no objections or ballot-challenges were voiced.

Here’s what they were watching.

First came two hours of work as a pair of two-man teams carefully removed ballot envelopes from inside security envelopes, then removed ballots from inside ballot envelopes before unfolding and stacking them.

State Director of Elections Gary Poser was ringmaster, announcing each stage of the proceedings and standing at the center of the courtroom overseeing a two-ring circus.

Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann sat at one table as half of one of the two-man teams. He seemed aware of being in the spotlight, bobbing his head and lowering his shoulders as he expressively pressed down the unruly stack of ballots.

But democracy is messy. Each ballot had just emerged after being folded for five months or more inside two envelopes, and the stack wouldn’t stay flat. Minnesota’s reliance on paper ballots has often been pointed to with pride by state officials. This was the downside.

The only sound — in a packed courtroom that’s usually used by the state Supreme Court — was the rattle and ripping of paper.

When his team’s work was done, Gelbmann wiped the tabletop clean of any paper crumbs.

Several times, an absentee-ballot envelope contained only a loose ballot, not enclosed in the customary security envelope. In those cases, Gelbmann reached for a blank white envelope to serve (for less than an hour) as a substitute security envelope. Then he demonstrated how to moisten an envelope while you’re on camera: Put the flap into your mouth and move it from left to right. Do not stick out your tongue to lick.

Finally Poser took a seat at a broad wooden table to sort the final stack of ballots into piles for Franken, Coleman or “other.”

Franken attorney Elias and Coleman attorney Tony Trimble hovered over Poser from either side, each leaning with his weight on four fingertips pressed into the table top.

A string of more than a dozen uninterrupted votes for Franken within the first 20 counted didn’t bode well for Coleman, who never led in the cumulative total as Poser called out the ballots one by one.

In the end, Poser announced the day’s final tally: Coleman, 111; Franken 198; and other, 42. That’s fewer than 400 ballots because of a mix-up: Some ballots that the judges ordered to be opened had already been counted.

The judges received Poser’s report and court was adjourned. Counting 351 ballots had taken about three hours.

And that was one-ten-thousandth of the effort put forth during the statewide hand recount of 2.9 million ballots at the end of last year.

That recount, as Elias pointed out repeatedly to reporters, ended with the same result as the election contest phase appears to have reached today: Al Franken has more votes than Norm Coleman.

Related: Deputy Secretary of State Gelbmann didn’t vote for Franken: “No misgivings whatsoever”

You’d think a Minnesota Democrat who voted for someone other than Al Franken for U.S. Senate might have second thoughts after five months of electoral agony — especially if that voter saw the effects of Franken’s near-tie with Republican Norm Coleman up close.

“I have no misgivings whatsoever,” says Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann, who helped lead the recount work and testified for days at the election contest trial.

Gelbmann is in the spotlight again today, counting ballots as the trial reaches a finale with the three-judge panel examining as many as 400 votes that Coleman hopes, likely in vain, will erase Franken’s 225-vote recount lead.

Gelbmann, who managed Mark Dayton’s successful 2000 campaign for U.S. Senate and then headed the Democrat’s Minnesota office for six years, did not cast his ballot for Al Franken last November. Instead, he voted for Independence Party candidate Dean Barkley.

“I was very annoyed and disgusted at how both candidates [Franken and Coleman] handled the campaign, with very little focus on the issues and very much on personal attacks,” Gelbmann says.

“It was a protest vote,” he acknowledges. “But it wasn’t just a protest vote.”

Gelbmann almost achieved poster-child status for Democrats who didn’t vote for Franken when he was on the witness stand in the election contest trial in January. But an objection from Coleman’s lawyers kept him from testifying to that fact.

Barkley would make a good senator, Gelbmann says. That’s one thing Barkley and Coleman have that Franken doesn’t: experience serving in the U.S. Senate. Gov. Jesse Ventura appointed Barkley to fill out the remainder of Paul Wellstone’s term after the Democrat’s untimely death in 2002.

But Gelbmann has a personal connection that distinguishes him from the average Democratic voter. He and Barkley know each other from the late 1990s, when both worked on the third floor of the state government’s Centennial Office Building — Gelbmann as director of the Minnesota Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation, and Barkley heading up the state Office of Strategic and Long-range Planning for Ventura.

Still, Gelbmann’s ticket-splitting raises the question of what role DFL voters played in setting the stage for Minnesota’s recount drama. Franken drew plenty of criticism for shortcomings as a candidate, and political observers say Democrats who didn’t vote for him don’t have to take the blame for Franken’s post-election ordeal.

Longtime DFL activist Arvonne Fraser notes that “party loyalty isn’t what it used to be.” In her view, Franken is a “very smart guy and a very hard worker” but endorsement and primary battles “didn’t help him at all [with DFL voters].”

Eric Ostermeier, a political scientist who writes the University of Minnesota’s Smart Politics blog, found Franken’s showing to be fourth-worst in DFL Party history. In an e-mail to MnIndy, he cast GOP voters as the main actors in November’s electoral drama:

The party-loyalty angle I guess would be this: the question is probably not so much why did DFLers split their ticket (as Franken carried most of them), but rather why were Republicans less likely to defect and vote for Franken, when they were willing to defect and vote for Obama and DFL US and State House candidates.

University of Minnesota history professor Hy Berman agrees. “I would guess that very few Republicans voted for Franken.” But Berman adds: “The fact is that core DFLers did vote for Franken.”

He ascribes the 10-percentage point gap between Franken’s result in Minnesota and Barack Obama’s to two factors: Franken’s negatives as a candidate and “the existence of a Barkley.”

“Franken being a flawed candidate had nothing to do with the campaign he ran but who he is,” Berman says.

They’re wearing riot gear in London and they’re talking recounts in New York. It’s all so St. Paul, last fall.

St. Paul to London

Demonstrators, massed in the capital city to protest a gathering of people who wield political power, met police wielding riot-control weaponry. A bank’s windows were broken. Peaceful crowds were trapped by police moving in pincer formations.

It could have been the Republican National Convention (RNC), September 2008, in  St. Paul, Minn.. But it was the G20 Summit, April 2009, in London, England.

Differences: A man died in London after he collapsed in an area police had hemmed in. (Natural causes, one protester said; thrown bottles hampered police medics’ efforts, police said.) And the United States of America has a Bill of Rights that’s supposed to guarantee freedom of speech; England doesn’t.

Uncanny similarity: For their summit, the G20 leaders selected a London location that people call the ExCel Centre. The RNC took place at St. Paul’s Xcel Center.

Minnesota to New York

As Election Day turns into The Day After (and the day after that), the margin between two candidates dwindles to less than a half-percent of the total votes cast. Fundraising for a recount and charges of election-stealing ensue.

Sounds like the Minnesota U.S. Senate election, November 2008 — but it’s New York’s special congressional election, April 2009, where Democrat Scott Murphy leads Republican Jim Tedisco by a mere 25 votes.

Differences: New York doesn’t count its absentee ballots until after Election Day and gives overseas ballots an extra couple of weeks to arrive — leaving thousands of votes still to include in the canvass. (Minnesota counts all absentee ballots on Election Day and accepts none that arrive any later.) And President Obama made a last-minute robocall that could have made the difference with Election Day returns. (Candidate Obama made no such pitch for Franken.)

Uncanny similarity: The parallel universes are converging as Republicans fall back on discredited election-stealing charges from the Al Franken-Norm Coleman dispute to prime the cash pump for New York’s post-election drama. (Democrats, presumably slightly less prone to getting riled since they hold slim leads in both races, are so far making a more generic fundraising pitch in New York.)

For fans of this sort of compressed video history, there’s also “Minneapolis in 19 Minutes Flat,” a film shown at the Minnesota Historical Society’s Mill City Museum in Minneapolis, with comic narration by storyteller Kevin Kling.

But if it’s the visual history of the recount that really checks your box, check out MnIndy’s “On Monotony: The best and worst of recount photography.”

As the Minnesota Independent first reported, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) didn’t tell Al Franken what he wanted to hear about setting up his own fund to cover election-contest legal costs. Franken’s own legal rhetoric about “no end in sight” didn’t hurt his case, a commissioner tells MnIndy — but the specter of future recounts did. 

The FEC did give the green light for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to set up a new post-election fund. But the commission couldn’t muster the same backing for Franken to do likewise — out of fear, one commissioner told the Star Tribune, that candidates would want new fundraising groups at every turn of the recount and election contest, making a mockery of spending limits:

“If you start parsing out every separate stage of this process with a separate fund, you could end up having 10 different funds and that would be a huge amount of money coming in,” [Commissioner Cynthia] Bauerly said. “What if a contest results in another partial recount? Do you get another recount fund?”

Where did the FEC get the idea that Minnesota’s process — which has proven lengthy to be sure, but has a structure that is not interminable — could yet go on and on?

Perhaps from Franken. In requesting an advisory opinion from the FEC, Franken attorney Marc Elias wrote (emphasis added):

But if the candidates are only able to raise [funds] under a single limit for the entire post-election process … then it will become progressively harder to defend the candidates’ and parties’ interests in that process …  The general election period spanned less than two months, from September 7 to November 4; the canvass, recount and contest have already consumed more than three months, with no end in sight.

(Republicans — who supported Franken’s request because it would also benefit them – jumped on the “no end in sight” line for Coleman’s own fundraising purposes.)

When a few days later Elias wanted to reiterate that Franken was asking for a speedy response, he called Cynthia L. Bauerly (pdf), the FEC commissioner quoted in the Strib, who is from Minnesota.

I decided to call her too, to ask whether Elias’ ominous words had scared off the commission from granting Franken’s wish.

Bauerly said no. “People tell us their circumstances all the time. We decide based on what the laws and regulations permit,” she said.

Bauerly has Minnesota roots but she asserted that her “connection to Minnesota has no bearing on my job as a commissioner.”

She added, “I suppose on a personal level, I’m interested in having two senators being seated in the Senate from my home state. Amy Klobuchar’s got a big  job to do as the only one. Minnesota should get everything it deserves, including two senators.”

What frightened Bauerly was the specter of future recounts in other places: “What if it’s in another state that has a different process of recount, election contest and so on? Would that be three funds?”

A divided commission couldn’t come to a decision supported by four of the six members (one member had recused herself):

I believe the most natural reading of the law is that there can be one fund for all of the activities that would take place after the election to determine who won. … We could not ultimately agree on where to draw a line as to how many funds under what circumstances are permitted.

At stake was $2,400 more from each willing contributor who’d already maxed out donation limits for Franken’s election and recount funds.

For those who haven’t yet maxed out, political-fundraising doyenne Esther Coopersmith held a luncheon last Wednesday for the Franken Recount Fund at her Washington, D.C., home.

Because future elections in other states might undergo even longer recount processes, Franken and Coleman will have to dig deeper into their Rolodexes to find new donors to invite to lunch.

Thursday’s statement by Norm Coleman attorney Joe Friedberg has generated plenty of interest at local blogs and national news sites alike, mainly for his opinion that it’s “probably correct” that Al Franken will come out on top when the three-judge panel hearing Coleman’s Senate election contest rules. USA Today responded by asking, ““When can we call him ‘Sen. Franken?’” And while local media have run matter-of-fact heads for the story — like MinnPost: “Norm’s lawyer: We’ll lose” — one outlet launched its story with a bold proclamation, only to replace it with a blander version within the hour.

Minnesota Public Radio’s headline, “Coleman attorney concedes defeat in recount trial” (seen above on Google News), was quickly replaced this morning with the decidedly less dramatic “Coleman attorney eyes appeal.”

Having gotten to the news a bit late (MN Publius seems to be the first local outlet to link to Hotline On Call’s transcript of the KFAN interview with Friedberg), perhaps MPR was working on a better second-day angle? Or did the campaign contact the station? I asked reporter Elizabeth Stawicki, who only said that “online” writes the headlines. She did not respond to my request for a contact in MPR’s online news division.

Update: Dave Orrick of the Pioneer Press reports that Friedberg made a “clarification” of his statement early Friday afternoon:

He didn’t deny any of what he said on the radio, but emphasized he believes Coleman’s legal strategy has merit.

“I believe that our position of enfranchising thousands of Minnesotans who had not had their ballots counted was, and remains, the proper way to proceed,” Friedberg’s statement reads, in part. It continues, “I feel confident that if the court proceeds with wisdom and with decisions based on the facts, and on the law, that we will succeed in our case.”

Coleman’s Peachtree State supporter, Andrew Dempsey, says he gave twice. The first donation landed him on the database that the campaign left in a publicly accessible place on its Web site in January. His question for Coleman: Is his second donation, made in February with a different credit card, also cause for concern?

But all he gets at the number Coleman offered for worried donors to call with questions is a recorded message. (Other donors have expressed the same gripe to MnIndy.) So he called me to ask my opinion of his situation, since I was the one from whom he learned about the database breach on Wednesday.

In fact Dempsey still hasn’t received notification about it from Coleman, he says. He read Coleman’s donor message at the MnIndy Web site. It’s a failing that could yet get the Coleman campaign into hot water. State law requires organizations to notify anyone whose private information they hold whenever such data leaks are disclosed, but the campaign didn’t tell its donors after the January breach.

MnIndy continues getting return e-mails and calls after contacting  around 600 people listed on the database made public by Wikileaks.org this week. Many say our e-mail was the first they’ve heard of the data leak. We posted a sampling of reactions on Wednesday that we got by phone and e-mail — ranging from “I owe you” to “Go pound sand.”

Now Wikileaks is getting into the supporter-reaction business. Here’s an e-mail from Wikileaks.org received today by a person on Coleman’s database of supporters (as opposed to donors, a list that likewise leaked from the campaign site):

From: Wikileaks Press Office
Date: Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Media inquiry, re: Senator Coleman leak
To: undisclosed-recipients

Dear Coleman subscriber. The national media would like your feedback in relation to the Senator Norm Coleman leak.

Your email address and personal details appear on a list of 51,000 Coleman supporters / donors / contacts accidentally released by the Coleman Campaign on January 28, 2009.

The list:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Senator_Norm_Coleman:_detailed_list_of_51%2C641_supporters_and_web-site_users%2C_28_Jan_2009

Background context:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/The_Big_Bad_Database_of_Senator_Norm_Coleman

Uni of M. statistical analysis of leaked Coleman Donors:

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Coleman%27s_Compromised_Donors:_Where_They_Came_From

You are on the list because you gave the Coleman for Senate Campaign your email address OR because Senator Coleman purchased your email address from another
mailinglist.

As you might be aware, the accidental leak by the Coleman Campaign has attracted national media interest this week:

http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=wikileaks&scoring=d

Several national news organizations, such as the AP, and local organizations in MN have asked us for your feedback. Rather than have the these organizations mail you and clutter your inbox, we have all agreed to to pool resources and ask you for this one-time comment.

We will publicly release all comments longer than one paragraph. If you ask for your comment to be anonymous, or “not for attribution,” your identity will be kept strictly confidential and removed before it is passed onto other media groups.

We will release all comments longer than one paragraph, ordered by quality of writing. No comments, provided they are over one paragraph will be excluded.

Q: What is your reaction to the Coleman leak?

Thank you, and have a nice weekend,

Jay Lim,
Wikileaks Press Office
Sunshine Press
Stockholm – Nairobi – Washington

UPDATE after the jump.

This is what the Coleman privacy policy used to say: “We do not retain records of contributors’ credit card numbers.” But, as the current policy states: “We reserve the right to change this privacy policy at any time …”

UPDATE: The change in Coleman’s policy regarding the storage of donors’ credit card data appears to have occurred sometime between January 23, 2008 and (thanks to a tipster for this) February 11, 2008. DataBreaches.net notes that the earliest entry in Coleman’s leaked donor database is from March 19, 2008. So the leaked database apparently includes entries made only after Coleman dropped the no-data-saving policy.

Here is the full text from the Coleman for Senate privacy policy from January 23, 2008:

Security
The servers that house ColemanForSenate.com are maintained in a manner that safeguards the information in our databases effectively.

Contributions
In particular, when you contribute online at ColemanForSenate.com, the transaction is processed using encrypted code on a secure donation site, on a secure and dedicated web server. The personal information that is requested is the same that we would request for donating through the mail. We do not retain records of contributors’ credit card numbers.

Personal Information
Unless you voluntarily provide us with any personal information, such as your e-mail address, this site does not collect personal information about you without your knowledge.

When you visit our site, we collect the following information: The name of the domain from which you access the Internet (for example, aol.com, if you are connecting from an America Online account). The date and time you access our site. The Internet address of the web site from which you linked directly to our site or the Internet address of the computer used to link to our site. This information is used for Site Management purposes only.

NOTICE: Unless you choose to provide such information, we do not collect or maintain personal information about you when you visit our site. If you send us an e-mail message or complete a web form containing personal information, we collect and store the personal information which you choose to provide, such as your mailing address, e-mail address and the content of any request for information or any comments you may have.

Use of Information
If you choose to provide any personal information, such as your mailing address or phone number, we may use that information to contact you.

Here’s the full text from the current Coleman for Senate Web site “Privacy Policy” page:

Privacy Policy
We at ColemanforSenate.com are committed to protecting your privacy and personal information. Below you will find our online privacy policy. If you have questions about this policy, please let us know.

Personal Information
This website does not collect any personal or identifiable information about you, such as an e-mail address, unless you voluntarily provide us with that information.

When you visit ColemanforSenate.com, we collect generic information that allows us to improve the value of this website. The website collects information such as which website linked you directly to this website, the date and time visits occur, the name of the domain from which you accessed this website (such as Comcast.com, or Aol.com if you use those services), and which web pages visitors view. This information is used for site management only.

If you voluntarily chose to provide personal information through this website (such as a mailing address, e-mail address, name, or phone number), this information will be safeguarded as outlined below and may be used to contact you.

The Federal Election Commission requires us to collect particular information from every donor who gives us money. For this reason, we collect information that can be directly tied to a particular person. The information required includes Names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses and any changes that may occur to the law. This information is only given to those who require this information.

Newsletter
The ColemanforSenate.com website provides an e-mail newsletter to those interested in staying updated on the campaign. This newsletter is only sent to those who voluntarily signup to receive it. People who receive the newsletter may opt-out of the newsletter at any time via the website.

Text Messaging
The ColemanforSenate.com website provides update via text messages to those interested in staying updated on the campaign. The text messages are only sent to those who voluntarily signup to receive them. People who receive these text messages may opt-out of the service at any time via the website.

External Sites
ColemanforSenate.com may link to other websites and blogs that we do not control and you will have to review their own privacy policies as we are not responsible for them.

Use of Cookies
Cookies are used to personalize the site and enhance your experience with it. A cookie is very small text file placed on your computer. Cookies do not contain any personal information about you. You can opt-out of our use of cookies by disabling cookies in your browser settings.

Security
In order to protect information collected by this website, we use commercially reasonable tools and techniques to safeguard against unauthorized intrusions.

Our servers are located in secure locations where a very limited number of people have access to them. The data stored on the servers is restricted to only those who have a reasonable need to have the data.

When transacting credit card information, we protect your information during the transfer process by using Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) software, which digitally encrypts information you enter.

Policy
We reserve the right to change this privacy policy at any time but the most current privacy policy will always be posted on the website or you can contact us and request one.