The May 9 editorial “Stemming the October surprise” advocated “blackout periods” in D.C. to keep the results of ethics or criminal investigations from the voting public at the very time (just before elections) that voters need to be fully informed of candidates’ ethical flaws. That odd proposal exhibited a mistrust of voters to be able to sort out what is relevant and what is a questionable accusation. Granted, a vast number of voters recently exhibited a proclivity for disregard of facts in their partisan tribalism. But it still bodes ill for a system to deny total transparency before elections.
The case of former D.C. Council member Elissa Silverman (I-At Large) does not prove much. Before the Office of Campaign Finance (OFC) finding, Ms. Silverman’s intentions seemed obvious, especially considering her close alliance with then-Ward 3 council candidate Matthew Frumin (D). The finding by the OFC of a violation might have had some impact on some voters. And the finding by the Board of Elections of “not enough evidence” of intent — hardly an exoneration — might have changed some minds. That said, the voters deserved to be able to sort it all out.
Edward Levin, Washington