See the Anti-Obama Ad That Was Banned in Washington (Maybe)!
Jacob Sullum | August 27, 2008, 6:43pm
Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, who helped fund the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004, this year is backing the American Issues Project (AIP), whose main effort so far is an ad attacking Barack Obama for his association with former Weatherman Bill Ayers. Obama's supporters are so mad about the ad that they want to punish him for it, and they expect the Justice Department to help.
In an August 21 letter to Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney, Obama campaign attorney Bob Bauer argues that Simmons is breaking federal campaign law by failing to register AIP as a political committee and by giving it too much money (about $3 million so far). He says the ad, which asks, "Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?," clearly qualifies as "express advocacy." He avers that the group, which says it champions "conservative values" such as "smaller government, a strong and ready national defense, lower taxes, and a government that encourages entrepreneurship and new job creation," has no known activities other than running anti-Obama ads and no purpose other than influencing elections. He sent Keeney a second letter on Monday, supplying additional details about AIP, describing the group as "patently illegal," and accusing Simmons of a "willful violation of law."
Election law expert Rick Hasen analyzes AIP's defense, which hinges on whether it qualifies for an exemption to the political committee rules that the Supreme Court carved out in a 1986 decision. Hasen is skeptical that it does, adding, "The group, and perhaps Simmons, could face fines, but by then the election would be over."
So which is the real outrage: that Simmons will get away with it, at worst paying a fine he can easily afford, or that the offense of which he is accused amounts to exercising his First Amendment rights in a manner that offends people in power?
Back when Simmons was casting aspersions on John Kerry's military career, I noted that Democrats and Republicans are equally happy to use election law as a gag to silence people who annoy them. In December I cheered SpeechNow's efforts to eliminate restrictions on express advocacy by independent groups that eschew donations from labor unions and corporations.
[Thanks to John Kluge for the tip.]
Other Matt | August 27, 2008, 7:43pm | #
As someone who is supporting Obama as the lesser evil
What a cop out.
Stand up and be proud of your support if that's what you want to do. joe's a complete fuckwit, but you have to give him points for being a dedicated fuckwit despite all manner of reason and logic to the contrary being shoved in his face. However, this kind of lukewarm qualification is ridiculous, either embrace the man or do something different, but don't try this half assed BS of "as the lesser evil."
Say you want to vote for Obama because you believe that socialism is a good thing and you really don't need that cash from your paycheck. Say you want to vote for McCain because you believe that authoritarian values are good, and you like a little more leftovers from your paycheck than the Obama guy. Say you want to vote for McKinney because she'd be an absolute hoot if she happened to bump into Putin in some state dinner someplace. Say you want to vote for Barr because of your personal values. It doesn't matter, but don't be such a wimp as to try to qualify your vote for someone you believe to be a disaster by calling it the "lesser evil."
Personally I believe Obama is much more capable of evil than McCain, simply because he has yet to define anything, and people view him as the second coming as they project their own feelings into that void. That's dangerous, it gives him license to do anything and the media is scrambling all over to accord him any means necessary to qualify his positions. If you want the lesser evil than McCain is by far the better choice as he'll be hampered by a congress of Dems with their soiled panties in a bunch for losing again, and therefore we'd be pretty much gaurenteed four years of gridlock to let society sort it out for real. Obama being elected will result in a bunch of joelike fuckwits overcome with joy passing all kinds of stupid shit which we'll spend the next forty or fifty years having to recover from. Again, McCain=Gridlock, Obama=Costly, unworkable, ill defined stupid shit, combined with kool aid drinking masses. Which has the higher potential for evil?
In either case, go vote for someone and be proud of it, don't try to position yourself to deny your vote later when Obama turns out to be what anyone with a brain can see coming.
As for Simmons, let the man say what he wants. There are enough outlets for someone to call Bullshit on him without having to resort to running to mommy saying he hurt your feelings. He's preaching to people who are already on his side anyway, so unlike the somewhat substantive questions raised about Kerry, right or wrong, this is just an inference smear. It's actually much less of an affront than what Obama did to Ferraro in terms of "truth in statements" when she made the rather tame comment that he wouldn't be getting the attention he was if he wasn't black.
