Obama seeks to ban attack AD

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
AIP Calls Obama Campaign Efforts to Prosecute Political Opponents ?Bullying? and ?Censorship?

AIP Responds to Second DOJ Letter from Obama Campaign Demanding Donor Prosecution

Washington, DC ? August 26, 2008 ? The Barack Obama campaign has now sent a second letter to the Department of Justice calling for the prosecution of one of American Issues Project?s donors for his role in funding a political advertisement in full compliance with all election laws.

?Having failed in its attempts to get our legal, factual and fully-supported ad off the air, Barack Obama?s campaign now wants to put our donors in prison for exercising their right to free speech," said Ed Martin, American Issues Project?s president. ?These over-the-top bullying tactics are reminiscent of the kind of censorship one would see in a Stalinist dictatorship, with the only difference being that those guys generally had to wait until they were in power to throw people who disagreed with them into jail.?

The AD in question;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m89m0pC_bpY

As far as I can tell there is nothing dishonest or unfounded about the Ad it just paints Obama in a bad light. Now he is going to extraordinary means, stepping all over free speech to quash it which does not boad well for his integrity or his adherence to first amendment rights as a government official.

Also pursuing this with such fervor certainly lends itself to speculation that he has more to hide regarding this Ads content that he does not want exposed.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
What happened to "You break the law, you get punished"?

If their donors (or Moveon's or any other org's) are trying to skirt the elections laws, they should be punished. Just because you are in agreement with their message doesn't make their actions any less illegal.

Situational ethics whining at its best.

Edit: Here's more info from a non-right leaning source:

Obama attorney Bob Bauer sent this letter to the Department of Justice claiming that AIP is engaged in illegal activities. Bob's letter makes two main claims:

1. The group is engaged in political activities that a 501(c)(4) organization may not engage in.

2. The group, by engaging in express advocacy against Sen. Obama and engaging in no other activities, is a political committee. But it has not registered as a political committee and has not followed the rules applicable to political committees.

I won't address the first issue, leaving that to the tax/non-profit lawyers. So the rest of this post addresses the second issue. Is AIP really a political committee in disguise? One of the most important limits on political committee activity is that the groups cannot accept contributions over $5,000 from any individual, making Simmons' $2.9 million
contribution illegal. (There's an argument that individual contributions to political committees that make only independent expenditures are constitutionally protected and cannot be limited. Bob has expressed sympathy with this argument in the past in his own (not campaign) capacity, the the Supreme Court has not considered the question yet.)

Cleta Mitchell, AIP's lawyer, has sent this response to the Justice Department. Mitchell does not disagree that AIP's anti-Obama ad is express advocacy, and that disclosure of spending on such ads is required. However, she argues that AIP does not have to register as a political committee, because the group qualifies as a special kind of non-profit ideological corporation that can make unlimited independent expenditures supporting or opposing candidates for office and take unlimited contributions to fund them. These types of groups are known as either "MCFL" corporations, because the Supreme Court created this exemption in a case called FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life. The FEC calls such groups "qualified non-profit corporations" (or QNCs), and it has issued a regulation defining who gets QNC status.

Mitchell argues that its group qualifies for QNC status because it is a non-profit corporation engaged in political activities that does not take corporate or union money and is organized as a 501(c)(4). It says its activities are no different from those of NARAL Pro-Choice America (which I believe is also a client of Bob Bauer's).

Assuming the facts are as Mitchell represents they are, it looks like AIP meets the requirements to be a QNC. However, Mitchell leaves out a significant part of the MCFL analysis. As the FEC's own discussion of MCFL (linked by Mitchell) notes, "Furthermore, the Court pointed out that 'should MCFL's independent spending become so extensive that the organization's major purpose may be regarded as campaign activity, the corporation would be classified as a political committee,' subject to the restrictions and extensive reporting requirements the law applies to such entities."

But why should we actually look at the merits of the claim when we can just ask the accused for their version?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Seems like Obama is only going to hurt himself more with this line of attack.

I wonder how long until this group starts to run adds pointing out how Obama is trying to shut up his critics.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Since Socio links directly to a post from the group spreading the message, here's a more objective analysis of whether what the group does is illegal or not.

Text

Edit: Looks like rightiswrong beat me to it.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
But why should we actually look at the merits of the claim when we can just ask the accused for their version?

Yeah, I found it amusing that the side of the story we got was from that of the accused... an unbiased source, to be sure :laugh:
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Here's a much less slanted and self-serving article about this story. (Seriously Socio? A press release by the group being accused? I take it you also took OJ Simpson's denials as the complete and full story of his case?)

Obama, conservative group battle through DOJ

DENVER (AP) ? Barack Obama and a conservative group have escalated their fight over the group's TV commercial linking him to a 1960s radical, by firing off dueling letters to the Department of Justice.

The Obama camp argued that the organization, the American Issues Project, is violating the law. The group cited a Supreme Court ruling to argue it is allowed to air the ad, which links Obama to 1960s radical William Ayers.

American Issues Project is a 501(c)4 nonprofit corporation. Such organizations are allowed to air political ads, provided the federal government determines that the group's primary purpose is not political.

The group filed a document with the Federal Election Commission last week identifying Texas billionaire Harold Simmons as the lone financier of the ad, contributing nearly $2.9 million to produce and air it. Simmons is a fundraiser for John McCain and was one of the major contributors to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which aired ads in 2004 against John Kerry.

The confrontation pits two of Washington's prominent campaign finance lawyers against each other ? Robert Bauer for Obama and Cleta Mitchell for the American Issues Project.

"This is an organization with no known other activities, no known financial support of any significance," Bauer wrote.

Mitchell replied: "The majority of AIP's annual expenditures are not political expenditures but are devoted to grassroots lobbying and education on issues, public policies and other communications, activities and programs appropriate to a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization in accordance with all applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue Code."

AIP spokesman Christian Pinkston said the group has raised what he called "significant" sums of money from a number of individual donors to carry out its lobbying and education functions. He said the group formed last year but did not have any financial activity until this year. A 501(c)4 corporation is not required to divulge the identity of its donors except when it airs a political ad.

"They're going all of these routes ? through threats, intimidation ? to try to thwart the First Amendment here because they don't have an argument on merit," Pinkston said.

Bauer also argued that if Simmons' $2.9 million contribution was for political purposes, then he exceeded federal contribution limits. He urged the Department of Justice to intervene because the ads "violate the law in both directions ? both in the raising and the expenditure of the funds."

Mitchell wrote in response: "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."

As the fight escalated, the University of Illinois at Chicago released documents about Obama's work for a school reform group linked to Ayers, but details about their interactions were scant in minutes from some early board meetings.

Ayers, who teaches at the university, has a controversial past that some McCain supporters want to highlight because of his past work with Obama. Ayers helped found the Weather Underground organization that took responsibility for a series of bombings, including nonfatal blasts at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol four decades ago.

Obama and Ayers both attended some 1995 board meetings of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers was instrumental in starting and Obama chaired in the 1990s.

The organization's meeting minutes show that during a June 1995 meeting, Ayers was credited with having "worked diligently" to support the board and the collaborative. But more than a year later, Obama pushed the group to be bolder in its reforms. Minutes from an October 1996 gathering show Obama raised questions about what the group should be doing.

"At the end of five years, will we have broken the mold? Not much seems to be bubbling up that is inspiring or substantive," the minutes say, paraphrasing Obama.

The Associated Press was among several news organizations reviewing the records released by the university. UIC set up appointments for more than a dozen journalists who wanted to review them.

Obama has said he "deplored" what Ayers did in the 1960s and that "by the time I met him, he is a professor of education at the University of Illinois. We served on a board together that had Republicans, bankers, lawyers, focused on education."
Sounds to me like it's reasonable for the Obama campaign to question whether AIP is following campaign regulations.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
The group is a 501(c)(4) group.

Similar groups:
AARP
Democratic Leadership Council
League of Conservation Voters
NRA
Moveon.org

Do any of these groups engage in political activities??
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The group is a 501(c)(4) group.

Similar groups:
AARP
Democratic Leadership Council
League of Conservation Voters
NRA
Moveon.org

Do any of these groups engage in political activities??

The legality of the issue is to be decided in a court, not by AIPs spinmasters. If you can explain away the issues brought up, please do (note I'm not saying they are valid, just that you are trying to simplify the issue away).
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The group is a 501(c)(4) group.

Similar groups:
AARP
Democratic Leadership Council
League of Conservation Voters
NRA
Moveon.org

Do any of these groups engage in political activities??

For a prof your reading comprehension fails.

2. The group, by engaging in express advocacy against Sen. Obama and engaging in no other activities, is a political committee. But it has not registered as a political committee and has not followed the rules applicable to political committees.

All the groups you mentioned engage in other activities besides solely political endorsement/critique of a candidate.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

Can you falsely yell fire in a crowded mall? (location change up for variety)
Can you knowingly publish outright lies about someone?
Can you take money from people that you tell them is for a charity but which you simply pocket?

Free speech has limits. Whether this group has engaged in activities beyond the limits set by law for such an organization is the debate.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The group is a 501(c)(4) group.

Similar groups:
AARP
Democratic Leadership Council
League of Conservation Voters
NRA
Moveon.org

Do any of these groups engage in political activities??

Yes, they all do. But they are also all designated as political groups which greatly restricts their funding from individual contributors. You know....they are following the law. What about AIP?
 

skyking

Lifer
Nov 21, 2001
22,796
5,967
146
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

Keep diverting, it is working well for you.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The group is a 501(c)(4) group.

Similar groups:
AARP
Democratic Leadership Council
League of Conservation Voters
NRA
Moveon.org

Do any of these groups engage in political activities??
Sorry, that's the wrong question. The question is whether the primary purpose of the group is political. They must follow the regulations on political campaigning. Obama's campaign is alleging that AIP is not complying with those regulations.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

Can someone explain to me why you can't understand that the issue is NOT one of free speech, but of the legality of certain donations to this organization. Doesn't all of this spinning make you dizzy, PJ?
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

Nothing has changed. There has always been a difference between the freedom of speech and the freedom to say whatever you damn well please anytime anywhere. Some examples have already been expressed to you in this thread. I am sure we could go on for weeks providing you with more examples if necessary including ones which even you believe people should be convicted for or at least be used as evidence to convict someone of a crime.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: jonks
Can you falsely yell fire in a crowded mall? (location change up for variety)
Can you knowingly publish outright lies about someone?
Can you take money from people that you tell them is for a charity but which you simply pocket?

Free speech has limits. Whether this group has engaged in activities beyond the limits set by law for such an organization is the debate.
Your first three lines have NOTHING to do with this ad. They have researched the hell out of the details in the ad and Obama is not even trying to refute the actually content of the ad.

You may be right that this group is violating the law by exceeding the boundaries set for such organizations.

However, these people still have a right to be heard and at the end if the day their right to free speech should trump any laws set up to regulate political action groups.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The group is a 501(c)(4) group.

Similar groups:
AARP
Democratic Leadership Council
League of Conservation Voters
NRA
Moveon.org

Do any of these groups engage in political activities??
Sorry, that's the wrong question. The question is whether the primary purpose of the group is political. They must follow the regulations on political campaigning. Obama's campaign is alleging that AIP is not complying with those regulations.
What is moveon.org's primary purpose????

How about the Democrat Leadership Council?
League of Conservation Voters??
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Free speech has limits. Whether this group has engaged in activities beyond the limits set by law for such an organization is the debate.

Yes, and that is for a court to decide. That is why we have courts and that is why freedom of speech in this country is well preserved. Again, nothing has happened to the freedom of speech in this country with exception of maybe a little bit of adaptation over the many years, but the same can be said about pretty much every law and every statement in the Constitution. That is just how countries and people work. It is a good thing.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: jonks
Can someone explain to me what happened to free speech in this country???

Can you falsely yell fire in a crowded mall? (location change up for variety)
Can you knowingly publish outright lies about someone?
Can you take money from people that you tell them is for a charity but which you simply pocket?

Free speech has limits. Whether this group has engaged in activities beyond the limits set by law for such an organization is the debate.
Your first three lines have NOTHING to do with this ad. They have researched the hell out of the details in the ad and Obama is not even trying to refute the actually content of the ad.

You may be right that this group is violating the law by exceeding the boundaries set for such organizations.

However, these people still have a right to be heard and at the end if the day their right to free speech should trump any laws set up to regulate political action groups.

First of all, work on your quoting, I had a hard time reading that mess.

Secondly, you think we should just ignore laws put in to place for specific reasons? Please don't ever, ever complain about political contributions again.
 

RKDaley

Senior member
Oct 27, 2007
392
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
You may be right that this group is violating the law by exceeding the boundaries set for such organizations.
Which is why Obama asked the DOJ to investigate.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
However, these people still have a right to be heard and at the end if the day their right to free speech should trump any laws set up to regulate political action groups.

Free speech does not trump breaking the law.

 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Seems like Hussein is setting up another commercial to be made. Just keep chomping at those sour grapes!
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Going with the free speech angle, I hear that there won't be a public delegate vote at the convention as they don't won't the possibility of the hillary delegates still placing their votes for her on TV.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The group is a 501(c)(4) group.

Similar groups:
AARP
Democratic Leadership Council
League of Conservation Voters
NRA
Moveon.org

Do any of these groups engage in political activities??
Sorry, that's the wrong question. The question is whether the primary purpose of the group is political. They must follow the regulations on political campaigning. Obama's campaign is alleging that AIP is not complying with those regulations.
What is moveon.org's primary purpose????

How about the Democrat Leadership Council?
League of Conservation Voters??
How about them? They are apparently following campaign regulations or the RNC would be all over them.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,225
664
126
Originally posted by: lupi
Going with the free speech angle, I hear that there won't be a public delegate vote at the convention as they don't won't the possibility of the hillary delegates still placing their votes for her on TV.

I saw one of the delegates last night saying should would vote for Hillary anyway, so I guess it doesn't really matter does it?

Do you have anything to say regarding the OP or are you just trolling. Hell this thread isn't even *about* free speech, that was just PJ's and Socio's lame attempt at making an issue out of something that isn't there.