Obama: Free Speech is only for those who agree with me

[crb]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92PL7400&show_article=1



but he sought to block stations from running the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial.

[Kembal]

The group's not even legally incorporated and is in violation of campaign finance law by specifically advocating for his defeat, according to the campaign.

We'll see how this goes. It is essentially one guy making a $3 million ad buy against Obama, which seems to violate the spirit of current campaign finance law, if nothing else.

[Back]

How is it not free speech to tell someone else to STFU and ask other people to tell them to STFU?

[TheEschaton]

Especially if what they're saying is a violation of federal law?

[Warriorbird]

Violating Federal law doesn't matter if you agree with crb.

[Kefka]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92PL7400&show_article=1

Didn't know slander was part of free speech.

[Tsa`ah]

I'm surprised anyone can associate Simmons with honesty.

All sorts of morons out there I guess.

[Valthissa]

Especially if what they're saying is a violation of federal law?

Not commenting on the merits (since I don't know anything about the claims).

Doesn't NYT v Sullivan set a rather extreme (actual malice, right?) standard for exercise of one's first amendment rights? So wouldn't going after Sinclair to pull the add amount to curtailing their right to broadcast information about a public official?

I'm certain that I'm missing something here and those familiar with the applicable laws can set me straight.

C/Valth

[crb]

How is it not free speech to tell someone else to STFU and ask other people to tell them to STFU?
Obama isn't just asking, he is trying to get the government to stop these ads. THAT would be a violation of free speech. Getting the government to silence those who disagree with you is a hallmark of the totalitarian.

Of course the Obama campaign claims they're in violation of election laws as their excuse, the group says they are not. Why is it you all automatically believe Obama over the group? You don't think this group consulted a lawyer or federal election officials before starting? Obviously there is the swift boat connection, you don't think they know election funding laws? Did something big change since 04?



The American Issues Project is a 501(c)4 nonprofit corporation. It is permitted by law to air a political ad provided that the majority of its spending is nonpolitical. It cannot accept money from corporations and it must identify the donors that finance its ads in reports to the Federal Election Commission. Pinkston said the group has set aside money to carry out non-election related work to meet the legal requirements. It filed a report identifying Simmons as its sole donor for the ad last week.


Is it okay for Moveon.org to run an imflammatory ad that is a lie indicating that John McCain a. wants a draft b. wants to draft babies and c. wants to keep active combat troops in Iraq for 100 years. But it is not okay for this organization to run a factual ad asserting that a. Obama is or was friends with Ayers. b. Obama launched he campaign from ayers' house. c. Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist? None of those facts are in dispute. Much of them are directly from Obama himself.

Also, for you rabid liberal fox haters....


Fox News and CNN have declined to air the anti-Obama ad.

OMG FOX IS SO BIASED!

[Daniel]

Obama isn't just asking, he is trying to get the government to stop these ads. THAT would be a violation of free speech. Getting the government to silence those who disagree with you is a hallmark of the totalitarian.

Of course the Obama campaign claims they're in violation of election laws as their excuse, the group says they are not. Why is it you all automatically believe Obama over the group? You don't think this group consulted a lawyer or federal election officials before starting? Obviously there is the swift boat connection, you don't think they know election funding laws? Did something big change since 04?



Play the game. Don't bitch about it.



Is it okay for Moveon.org to run an imflammatory ad that is a lie indicating that John McCain a. wants a draft b. wants to draft babies and c. wants to keep active combat troops in Iraq for 100 years. But it is not okay for this organization to run a factual ad asserting that a. Obama is or was friends with Ayers. b. Obama launched he campaign from ayers' house. c. Ayers is an unrepentant domestic terrorist? None of those facts are in dispute. Much of them are directly from Obama himself.

Also, for you rabid liberal fox haters....



OMG FOX IS SO BIASED!


I'm pretty sure that McCain did say he didn't care if combat troops were in Iraq for 100, even 10,000 years.

[crb]

McCain said

"Why not 100? So long as troops aren't being harmed or hurt or killed I don't have a problem with it."

He then went out to explain in more detail, the exact words I do not remember, saying the goal should be to focus on when Iraq will be safe and try to make it safe, not to pick an arbitrary date or time period for withdrawal, and he compared a long term presence to what we have in Germany or South Korea. Factcheck.org it.

[Daniel]

Either way he still said it.

[Back]

McCain said

"Why not 100? So long as troops aren't being harmed or hurt or killed I don't have a problem with it."

He then went out to explain in more detail, the exact words I do not remember, saying the goal should be to focus on when Iraq will be safe and try to make it safe, not to pick an arbitrary date or time period for withdrawal, and he compared a long term presence to what we have in Germany or South Korea. Factcheck.org it.

He is such a maverick. Even Bush wants to agree to timetables now.

[crb]

He is such a maverick. Even Bush wants to agree to timetables now.
Thanks to the success of the surge, which Obama opposed and which he refuses to acknowledge as successful, we can now bring the troops home earlier than previously anticipated.

This is not a point in Obama's favor.

[Daniel]

If that's not a lot of bullshit then I don't know what is.

First and foremost, the surge was centered around Baghdad. Which is a pretty big area, but is in no way indicitive of the rest of the country.

[Back]

Thanks to the success of the surge, which Obama opposed and which he refuses to acknowledge as successful, we can now bring the troops home earlier than previously anticipated.

This is not a point in Obama's favor.

Huh. Like McCain was the one who thought up the surge to kill more people in a country that had never attacked us? Pretty sure all that Iraq stuff was the, I can now say, previous administration who lost the ball. Many, many of them have retired or been fired, caught in lies, and convicted.

The republican party seriously fucked themselves.

I am going to paint you a picture. With words. This administration is like a person who is drowning. That person will grasp at anything that will save themselves...

[Daniel]

Okay. Yea. Don't associate me with back's response.

[crb]

Huh. Like McCain was the one who thought up the surge to kill more people in a country that had never attacked us? Pretty sure all that Iraq stuff was the, I can now say, previous administration who lost the ball. Many, many of them have retired or been fired, caught in lies, and convicted.

The republican party seriously fucked themselves.

I am going to paint you a picture. With words. This administration is like a person who is drowning. That person will grasp at anything that will save themselves...
McCain, and Biden for that matter as well as I recall, but McCain more forcefully, as early as late 2003 and early 2004 said we needed a larger footprint. And McCain has been probably the most critical senator of Donald Rumsfeld, from either party, for his managing of the war effort.

Sure, he didn't conceive of and execute the surge all by himself, but he certainly deserves some credit for bringing it about.

[Back]

McCain, and Biden for that matter as well as I recall, but McCain more forcefully, as early as late 2003 and early 2004 said we needed a larger footprint. And McCain has been probably the most critical senator of Donald Rumsfeld, from either party, for his managing of the war effort.

Sure, he didn't conceive of and execute the surge all by himself, but he certainly deserves some credit for bringing it about.

From the person who thinks there should be an age limit to vote.

[Kembal]

Obama isn't just asking, he is trying to get the government to stop these ads. THAT would be a violation of free speech. Getting the government to silence those who disagree with you is a hallmark of the totalitarian.

Of course the Obama campaign claims they're in violation of election laws as their excuse, the group says they are not. Why is it you all automatically believe Obama over the group? You don't think this group consulted a lawyer or federal election officials before starting? Obviously there is the swift boat connection, you don't think they know election funding laws? Did something big change since 04?

I'm pretty certain they didn't consult an election lawyer (or a good one, anyway)...they've said that they organized as a 501(c)(4). They tried to get away without disclosing their donor list (of one), until it was pointed out that they were not a 527 and could not do that.

I also think (not certain) that 501(c)(4) organizations cannot do anything other than issue advocacy. That's the reason everyone set up 527s instead.

[crb]

The American Issues Project is a 501(c)4 nonprofit corporation. It is permitted by law to air a political ad provided that the majority of its spending is nonpolitical. It cannot accept money from corporations and it must identify the donors that finance its ads in reports to the Federal Election Commission. Pinkston said the group has set aside money to carry out non-election related work to meet the legal requirements. It filed a report identifying Simmons as its sole donor for the ad last week.

....

[crb]

Response from AIP

http://www.americanissuesproject.org/american-issue-project-news/update-obama-campaign-s-response-to-our-ad.html


American Issues Project Responds to Obama Campaign’s Efforts to Compel TV Stations, Government to Censor Ad

Obama team fails to convince stations to kill ad in spite of threats, harassment and false claims


Washington, DC – August 26, 2008 – The Barack Obama campaign has resorted to a campaign of intimidation and legal threats to convince television stations and the federal government to force off the air an ad by the American Issues Project detailing the link between Sen. Obama and remorseless domestic terrorist William Ayers.

The Obama campaign has been contacting stations running American Issues Project’s ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot. The Obama campaign also sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice asking the government to investigate American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors. With no success on either front, the campaign has begun running its own ad in response. Notably, this ad fails to dispute a single fact in the American Issues Project’s initial ad.

“The Obama campaign knows it can’t argue the facts of the link between Obama and Ayers, so it is instead resorting to a desperate campaign of intimidation and legal threats,” said Ed Martin, American Issues Project’s president. “The scary question this raises is if Barack Obama demonstrates this little regard for free speech from his opponents during the campaign, what could the American people expect from him as a president?”

“The tremendous amount of time, money and effort the campaign is expending to run its own ads on the Ayers controversy and dispatch its hired guns all over the country – during the Democratic convention – speaks to the fear they must have that this issue is resonating with American voters.”

American Issues Project sent a letter today to the Department of Justice responding to the Obama campaign’s claims. Key points from the letter:

AIP is organized as a qualified nonprofit corporation as that term is defined in the regulations of the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) 11 C.F.R. §114.10. As such, AIP enjoys the protections of the provisions of the Supreme Court’s decision more than twenty years ago in FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 646 (D. Mass. 1984), aff’d, 769 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1985), aff’d, 479 U.S. 238 (1986)…

AIP complies with each and every one of the provisions outlined by the Supreme Court in the MCFL case, as well as the regulations of the FEC promulgated subsequently…

Counsel for the Obama Campaign is undoubtedly fully knowledgeable of the reporting and compliance responsibilities of qualified nonprofit corporations, such as NARAL-Pro Choice America (“NARAL”), an organization that, ironically, also claims protection as an entity described in Massachusetts Citizens for Life v. FEC…

AIP functions in exactly the same manner as NARAL and any other qualified nonprofit corporation. NARAL has made substantial independent expenditures in opposition to Sen. McCain’s presidential candidacy during the 2008 election cycle and continuing through the present time. Yet, no objection to those expenditures has been raised by the Obama campaign…

Surely we have not come to a point where the government and its agencies are used to protect presidential candidates from citizens’ speech, essentially destroying the very purpose, meaning and historical essence of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[Mabus]

Let's look at a call from earlier this year by a democrat:
"Now he should release his records from being in the state Senate and any other information that the public and the press need to know from his prior experience." -Hillary Clinton

Obama says of Ayers:
"not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis"
"a guy who lives in my neighborhood,"

These can both be shown to be partial-truths, from his work with Ayers, launching his political career from Ayers home, as well as previous interviews in which he has praised Ayers.

Yet Obama, Ayers and the University of Illinois at Chicago are refusing to release (or even allow viewing of) 137 boxes of data dealing with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama and Ayers worked together. If he really doesn't know Ayers that well, even after working with him, then what is there to hide?

The ad in question, and documents dealing with it, can be found at the American Issues Project Website (http://www.americanissuesproject.org/).

It does not directly call for electing a specific candidate, or call for not supporting a specific candidate, it merely asks questions like:
"Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?"

That should well be within the law.

The only thing I can see in that ad that could be called into question is if Ayers is a "friend" of Obama's, and that would be subjective. The rest is factual.

[Kembal]

crb,

It filed that donor report only after it was pointed out that they needed to. From the original AP article about the ad, posted Thursday, August 21:


The ad is the first for the American Issues Project. As a nonprofit organization, the group does not have to identify its donors or the amounts they contribute.

From the Los Angeles Times, Saturday, August 23:


Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, who helped pay for the devastating attacks on the military record of Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry in 2004, has paid for a television ad that assails Barack Obama over his ties to a founder of a violent radical group.

Simmons, who is also a major fundraiser for John McCain, donated $2.87 million that a newly formed nonprofit group, the American Issues Project, has used for the ad, a report filed Friday with the Federal Election Commission shows.

In short, they believed they didn't have to file and told the AP such, and then had to file a day later when it was pointed out that they were required to.

Also from the Los Angeles Times, a key point:


Obama attorney Robert F. Bauer charged in a letter to the Justice Department that the American Issues Project is engaging in a "willful attempt to evade the strictures of federal election law."

The group claims tax- exempt status.

Bauer noted that the law limits the ability of such committees to expressly advocate for the defeat or election of a candidate.

Instead, he charged, the group should be operating as a political organization.

Federal law, however, caps the size of donations to such groups, a restriction that would have precluded Simmons from donating $2.87 million.

[Kembal]

Yet Obama, Ayers and the University of Illinois at Chicago are refusing to release (or even allow viewing of) 137 boxes of data dealing with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama and Ayers worked together. If he really doesn't know Ayers that well, even after working with him, then what is there to hide?


Campaign said they don't control the records. UIC is supposedly negotiating an agreement with the donor of those records for their release. I think everyone's expecting a release next week.

[Mabus]

Campaign said they don't control the records. UIC is supposedly negotiating an agreement with the donor of those records for their release. I think everyone's expecting a release next week.
Why not just wait till after the conventions, or even after the elections?

This seems to be the "new kind of politics" that we deal with, when dealing with Obama. Hide, distort, lie and squelch free speech. Good, old fashioned Chicago-style politics.

[Daniel]

McCain, and Biden for that matter as well as I recall, but McCain more forcefully, as early as late 2003 and early 2004 said we needed a larger footprint. And McCain has been probably the most critical senator of Donald Rumsfeld, from either party, for his managing of the war effort.

Sure, he didn't conceive of and execute the surge all by himself, but he certainly deserves some credit for bringing it about.

Well, beside from the bullshit charge that McCain has been the most critical of Rumsfield, do you know who first said we needed a larger footprint?

General Shinseki.

That got him a whole lot of no where.

[Khariz]

Well, beside from the bullshit charge that McCain has been the most critical of Rumsfield, do you know who first said we needed a larger footprint?

General Shinseki.

That got him a whole lot of no where.

This is 100% accurate. Shinseki know from the get-go that we went in there with too few troops and Rummy didn't give two shits less. One of the most unfortunate situations of the entire deal, imo.