Displaced voters who vote by email or fax must follow up with a mailed-in ballot. (Ho John Lee: Flickr)

Because so many New Jersey voters are displaced by Hurricane Sandy, government officials are permitting online or fax voting — with a back up paper ballot. Computer technology and voter security experts say the rest of us shouldn’t get too excited that we’ll have this option any time soon. As the Washington Post reports, security concerns are too significant for online voting to be implemented more broadly:

Researchers said there is little to stop anyone from creating new e-mail accounts under the names of residents of disaster-hit areas such as Atlantic City and pretending to cast votes for them.

“How do you know that person is really who they claim to be? If a server receives e-mail, how do you verify the authenticity of that voter? It’s a big challenge, particularly in an ad hoc situation like this,” said Ron Rivest, a professor of computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The Post further reports that displaced voters in New York will be permitted to cast a provisional ballot at any polling place, by order of Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports that in California, only overseas and military personnel can cast ballot by email:

Otherwise, no state precincts allow voters to cast their ballots via e-mail, and the state hasn’t considered building a secure Web portal for voters.

Why does it take a catastrophe for any state to tap an everyday communication medium as a means to vote?

There are several explanations, depending on whom you ask.

Nick Judd, managing editor of tech-in-politics site TechPresident, points out that ballots are supposed to be secret and untraceable back to the voter, and that if votes are sent by e-mail, they’ll create a record in the server that the provider – or even the government with a warrant – could access.

(In the cases of ballots from overseas military personnel, voters must waive their right to a secret ballot so the vote can be processed.)

Another concern: E-mail is not dependable. Servers can fail. And with encryption and security measures varying among e-mail providers, ensuring a secure transaction is tricky.

The Chronicle also took a look at voting through a government supported secure website. After all, we shop and bank on websites, right? The Chronicle cites David Jefferson, a cybersecurity expert with Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. He is a strong voice against voting via government website:

“People have the illusion that e-commerce transactions are safe because merchants and banks don’t hold consumers financially responsible for fraudulent transactions that they are the innocent victims of,” Jefferson points out.

“Instead, the businesses absorb and redistribute the losses silently, passing them on in the invisible forms of higher prices, fees and interest rates. Businesses know that if consumers had to accept those losses personally, most online commerce would collapse.” …

For online ballots, the equivalent would be a lost or altered vote. But unlike spreading costs around within a large bank, polling places can’t compensate for erroneous votes.

Scott Beale/Laughing Squid

Twitter can be a great resource if you’re looking for the latest updates and perspective on today’s election. It can also be an incredibly frustrating source for news.

Throughout the day reporters, news organizations, politicians, voters and others will be sharing concise, up-to-the-second information about who’s winning, who’s losing and what it might mean for the country. All that chatter can create a lot of noise. Consider that more than 105,000 Tweets were being sent every minute at one point during the Oct. 22 presidential debate.

To help separate the wheat from the chaff KQED News created several resources for Twitter users looking for updates on the election — lists and hashtags we’ll be following today as we Tweet from @KQEDnews.

TWITTER LISTS

News Outlets KQED Follows: This list includes Tweets from 39 news organizations from around the Bay Area and California. It also includes Tweets from the California Secretary of State’s office.

Reporters Covering the Election: This is a list of Twitter accounts for 63 reporters from around the state. Most of the reporters on this list cover state politics, so you can assume they’ll be Tweeting on election night.

Candidates and Campaigns: This list includes Tweets from organizations campaigning for and against state ballot issues It also will have Tweets from the presidential campaigns and the candidates in some of the Congressional races KQED has been covering.

HASHTAGS

An important note: searches on Twitter automatically return “top” Tweets. To see Tweets in real time, be sure to click “all” at the top of the search results. Clicking on the links below will show you Tweets in real time.

For general election news:

• #election
• #election2012

For news about the election in California:

• #CA2012
• #VoteCA

For news about the propositions on the ballot in California:

• #Prop30
• #Prop31
• #Prop32
• #Prop33
• #Prop34
• #Prop35
• #Prop36
• #Prop37
• #Prop38
• #Prop39
• #Prop40

For news about local issues:

• Typically, for local issues, the hashtag format is #(issuename). So the hashtag for news on the Richmond soda tax is #MeasureN.

CUSTOM SEARCHES:

• For Tweets in English that include the words “vote” or “voted” — and are posted from accounts listed in the Bay Area – click here.
• For Tweets in English that include the word “election” — and are posted from accounts listed in the Bay Area – click here.

(401(K) 2012: Flickr)

Here’s what we can glean about the groups that funneled $11 million into California to try to defeat Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax measure — Prop. 30 —  and to pass Prop. 32 — which would limit unions’ ability to raise political funds:

The state Fair Political Practices Commission announced earlier today that Americans for Responsible Leadership, the Arizona group that last month made the $11 million contribution to a California PAC, had identified the “true source” of the donation: a Virginia-based group called Americans for Job Security. That organization in turn funneled the money back to Americans for Responsible Leadership through yet another group, the Center to Protect Patient Rights. We cannot find a website for it. The Center’s address is listed as a P.O. box in Phoenix.

Completely lost? Let’s review the steps — steps which the FPPC characterizes as “campaign money laundering” under California law:

1. Americans for Job Security (Virginia) sent money to the Center to Protect Patient Rights (P.O. box in Phoenix)
2. The Center to Protect Patient Rights sent it to Americans for Responsible Leadership (Arizona)
3. Americans for Responsible Leadership in turn sent $11 million to the Small Business Action Committee PAC, here in California. One might assume the PAC lost no time in dumping the money into TV ads to defeat Prop. 30 and to pass Prop. 32. The Sacramento Bee’s Capitol Alert lays out the money trail, complete with dates.

Now we have the names of the committees involved. How about the people or companies who were the source of the money in the first place? We’re in the dark about that, thanks to federal law and court rulings that allow a wide spectrum of political donors to keep their identities secret.

But a few facts about Americans for Job Security and Center to Protect Patient Rights have come out:

Americans for Job Security in Alexandria, VA

• OpenSecrets a project of Center for Responsive Politics shows that Americans for Job Security has spent about $15 million this year against Democrats running for federal office and about $650,000 against Republicans.
• Little is known about Americans for Job Security (AJS) beyond the fact it is apparently run by Stephen DeMaura, a 20-something former head of the New Hampshire Republican Party. The New York Times pried open a window on the organization two years ago when AJS showed up as a major donor in a local initiative campaign in Alaska. Americans for Job Security spent $1.6 million to oppose expansion of a gold and copper mining operation near Bristol Bay — arguably fighting the creation of jobs. A subsequent state investigation found that a local millionaire whose fishing lodge might have been impacted by the mining operation recruited AJS’ help in promoting a local ballot measure to block the mine. As the Times reported:

The group ended up in Alaska through [the work of Michael Dubke, former head of AJS] for opponents of the proposed Pebble Mine, led by an Alaska financier, Robert Gillam, whose private fishing lodge could be affected. The opponents said the mine would endanger commercial fishing and pushed a ballot initiative aimed at imposing clean-water restrictions on it; its backers said the mine would create jobs.

Mr. Dubke’s work for Mr. Gillam was called Operation Trenchcoat, documents show, and involved finding out who was behind a pro-mine Web site called Bob Gillam Can’t Buy Alaska. Mr. Gillam testified that he spoke with Mr. Dubke about Americans for Job Security, and decided to join by giving $2 million in “membership fees,” and that he “had high hopes” the money would be used to oppose the mine. (The ballot initiative ultimately failed.)

State investigators found that the advocacy group quickly passed almost all the money to another nonprofit, Alaskans for Clean Water, set up to campaign for the referendum by a group that included Art Hackney, a local Republican consultant and board member of Americans for Job Security. Mr. DeMaura told investigators that while he may have talked to Mr. Dubke about the mine issue, he decided to spend the money “based upon his own research and judgment,” and that there was no prior agreement with Mr. Gillam or Mr. Dubke.

The Alaska Public Offices Commission’s staff report called this “completely implausible” and concluded that Americans for Job Security had violated state law by acting as an improper conduit. It also took a shot at the group’s explanation that it protects its members’ identities so they can speak out without fear of reprisals.

The Times also gave this description of Americans for Job Security’s operation: “The group’s Republican connections begin with location: While its public address is a drop box at a United Parcel Service store in Alexandria, Va., Mr. DeMaura actually works out of space that is sublet from a Republican consulting shop, Crossroads Media, whose other clients include the national Republican Party, the Republican Governors Association and American Crossroads, a Karl Rove-backed group raising millions to support Republican candidates.”

Center to Protect Patients’ Rights (CPPR)

The best quick writeup we’ve found on CPPR is also from OpenSecrets: Mystery Health Care Group Funneled Millions to Conservative Nonprofits. That piece identifies CPPR’s head as Sean Noble of Phoenix, a former congressional staffer. Politico says Noble is a key operative for billionaires Charles and David Koch, who provide deep pockets for a wide variety of conservative causes.

Here’s what OpenSecrets says about where CPPR’s money comes from:

The donors to the Center to Protect Patient Rights are almost entirely unknown. Such tax-exempt organizations must detail the groups to whom they gave grants, but not the sources of their own funds. A small grant of $200,000 came to CPPR from American Action Network, yet another 501(c)(4), according to the Form 990 tax return that American Action filed with the Internal Revenue Service this week.

And if its donors are unknown, so is much else about CPPR. According to its own 2010 tax return, which was filed last November, it is run by Sean Noble, who is listed as its director, president and executive director. Noble describes himself on his Twitter account as a “PR/Political consultant, conservative strategist/operative, former GOP Hill chief of staff, blogger, proud father, fighting for liberty.” Noble was chief-of-staff to former Republican Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona, for whom he worked for 13 years, and since then has worked as a political consultant and in public relations.

The Los Angeles Times also reported on the Center to Protect Patients Rights last May. Here’s how that story described the CPPR’s link to the Koch brothers – and how the brothers responded to questions about it:

(401(K) 2012: Flickr)

The California Fair Political Practices Commission released a statement Monday morning saying the Arizona-based Americans for Responsible Leadership violated California law by engaging in “campaign money laundering.”

As the Los Angeles Times reports:

In a stunning reversal, an obscure Arizona nonprofit at the center of a legal battle over secret political contributions released on Monday morning the identity of its contributors, which it had been fighting tooth and nail to keep secret.

But the disclosure did little to shed light on who was behind the $11-million donation to a California campaign fund. The Arizona group, Americans for Responsible Leadership, identified its contributors only as other nonprofits.

The money was passed from Americans for Job Security to the Center to Protect Patient Rights to Americans for Responsible Leadership, according to state authorities. From there, the money was sent to a California campaign committee fighting Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax-hike plan, Proposition 30, and pushing a separate ballot measure to curb unions’ political influence, Proposition 32.

This morning on KQED’s Forum, host Michael Krasny talked to KPCC reporter Julie Small, who has been following this issue since the donation was first made. An edited transcript of their conversation follows:

Michael Krasny: We now know who is behind the $11 million contribution by an Arizona non-profit to influence California ballot measures. What do we know about this mysterious donor? Will we finally be able to name names here?

Julie Small, KPCC: We’re able to name names of more mysterious organizations. Americans for Responsible Leadership says it’s the intermediary, not the source of the contribution, and the source is (another organization) Americans for Job Security. What we know about that organization is that it’s run by Stephen DeMaura, the former director of the New Hampshire State Republican Committee. Americans for Job Security is based in Alexandria, Virginia. I think every journalist on the state elections beat is now trying to find out more about that organization. Americans for Job Security passed the money through another group called the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights—all we know about that right now is that they have a P.O. Box in Phoenix, Arizona. We believe that they’re tied to the Koch brothers.

Michael Krasny: That was initially going to be my question — there’s been a lot of talk about the Koch brothers here, as well as the GOP, but this is really, under California law, money laundering, isn’t it?

Julie Small: Yes, that’s what the Fair Political Practices Commission Chair Ann Ravel says — this is money laundering. The Arizona group essentially used other organizations to move money and to hide the source of the money. They Fair Political Practices Commission says they’re not going to stop here. What they’ve gotten this morning is just this little bit of information: they didn’t get an audit; they didn’t get to see the records yet. They’re going to be looking at this more closely, but they decided that the priority for them was to get voters some information right away, before voters cast their ballots — those who haven’t cast ballots yet, that is.

Michael Krasny: Can you give us a little background on how the FPPC managed to get this information released, the legal wrangling behind it?

Julie Small: They sued to get the information. They wanted the information just for an initial audit. Under California law, if somebody donates money to a California campaign knowingly — knowing it’s going to a California campaign — they have to disclose their name. But Americans for Responsible Leadership said, “Well, no, these donors — that doesn’t apply to them.”

The Fair Political Practices Commission sued them in Sacramento Superior Court. The Sacramento Superior Court ruled in favor of the California elections officials. The other side appealed the ruling, which put the ruling was on hold. So then the Fair Political Practices Commission turned to the California Supreme Court.

In a rather extraordinary move, the Supreme Court looked at the issue over the weekend and issued a ruling on Sunday that said “Americans for Responsible Leadership, turn over the information.” And it went on even into the wee hours of the night last night because the Arizona group said they wanted to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to override the California Supreme Court. But then late in the night, they made a settlement and agreed to turn over the names of the donors, but not all the details about the donation.

Michael Krasny: Yes, we thought we weren’t going to find out anything until after the election, so this is really a major breaking story. I guess my final question for you is: in the light of this $11 million and its sources — the largest contribution ever disclosed in California’s history — where do we go from here?

Julie Small: I think that the Fair Political Practices Commission says we need to strengthen these laws. You know, it was very close, it really looked like it wasn’t, as you say, going to happen before the election. Even when someone violates these disclosure laws in California, the fines are very small — perhaps $7,000 per violation. And there seem to be a lot of ways people can avoid disclosures. So I think we’ll be seeing in the legislature next year some efforts to make our laws — which are some of the strongest campaign disclosure laws in the nation — even stronger.

Michael Krasny: Julie Small, KPCC, thank you for joining us.

In the statement from the FPPC, Ann Ravel, its chair, said, “The persistence and hard work of the FPPC has won a significant and lasting victory for transparency in the political process. We will continue in this matter and all others to ensure that the people of California know who is funding political activity in this State.”

This post was updated to include a transcript from a discussion on KQED’s Forum.

Listen to Michael Krasny’s discussion with Julie Small, KPCC:

Peninsula Press then joined that money data with U.S. zip codes so anyone can look, interactively, at how much money is flowing to proposition campaigns, from California and from across the country. Pick your prop and take a look. How much is the rest of the country donating heavily to props here at home?

Works best on the Chrome browser…

The Gregory Brothers do it again…

His format sounds suspiciously like that of the first presidential debate. Schieffer has picked six topics — although not necessarily to be discussed in this order:

• America’s role in the world
• Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
• Red Lines – Israel and Iran
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
• The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
• The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World

Schieffer will open each segment with a question, and the candidates will have two minutes to respond. Then it’s Schieffer’s job to “facilitate a discussion” for a total of 15 minutes on each topic.

The debate starts at 6 p.m. PT.

Here’s the NewsHour Live Stream:

Debate chat from NPR, starting at 5:30 PT:

Fact check the debate while it’s going on — or immediately after:

• Factcheck.org
• Politifact.com

Here are some live blogs:

• NPR
• PBS NewsHour
• policymic
• The Guardian (UK)
• The Washington Post
• Forbes
• NY Times
• Foreign Policy

Through the studio glass: Michael Krasny hosts KQED's daily call-in show "Forum."

Here at KQED, we take elections pretty seriously. It’s a time when our mission of educating the public comes to a head — the messages coming from the campaigns are unrelenting and taken as a whole can present a confusing picture. So helping you cast an informed vote is our aim.

That was the philosophy behind our state proposition guide. Some people, however, prefer listening to reading. For those folks we present a complete archive of Forum’s 2012 state proposition shows. Some are an hour long, some are half an hour, but all present views from both sides and include community input we received via calls, emails, Facebook and Twitter. So sit back, turn up your speakers, and take a listen…

Prop. 30: Gov. Brown’s Tax Increase for Education, Public Safety

Prop. 31: Revises the State Budget Process

Prop. 32: Campaign Finance Reform or an Attack on Unions?

Prop. 33: Changes to Auto Insurance

Prop. 34: The Death Penalty in California

Prop. 35: Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery

Prop. 36: Should Three Strikes Be Changed?

Prop. 37: The Fight Over GMO Labeling

Prop. 38: Molly Munger’s Tax Initiative for Education

Prop 39: How We Tax Multi-State Businesses

Please note: Forum did not produce a show on Proposition 40. You can find more information on that here.

Want to watch the debate and the Giants game at the same time? You may want to take note of how Nick Juliano watches college football. Photo courtesy Nick Juliano.

At 5 p.m. the San Francisco Giants will take the field for what could be the last time this season. (Hey, we’re not hoping, we’re just saying, you know, it’s a possiblity.) An hour later, the presidential candidates will take the stage for what will be the final debate before the election. (And this one we’re pretty sure about).

Two decades ago, in that pre-DVR wilderness, that might’ve created a dilemma for Bay Area residents. Do you turn your television to the Giants game and root the team on to the World Series? Or do you watch the debate and learn more about the candidates vying to lead the free world? Or do you go to a loud, crowded bar and hope to do both at the same time?

Fortunately, those days are behind us. Chances are you have at least two televisions and at least one mobile device that will allow you to watch the game while following the debate, or vice versa, in the peace and quiet of your own home. Here’s where you can find the events on air, online and on mobile:

5 p.m., St. Louis Cardinals at the San Francisco Giants, NLCS Game 7

On television: Pre-game starts at 4:30 p.m. on KTVU, the Fox affiliate which is channel 2 for Bay Area Comcast subscribers.

On radio: KNBR 680 AM will broadcast the game.

Online or on mobile:

• Listen live on ESPN radio.
• Follow along pitch-by-pitch on the MLB website.
• Live chat on San Jose Mercury News.
• Get stats and scores from the ESPN ScoreCenter mobile app.
• Follow #SFGiants or @SFGiants on Twitter.