PDA

View Full Version : Democrats: Party of Free Speech*



Aggie Hoopsfan
08-26-2008, 08:11 PM
* unless you criticize Obama, then you should be prosecuted by the Justice Department.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_camp_Prosecute_Simmons.html


Obama general counsel Bob Bauer today sent a second, sharper letter to the Justice Department, directly attacking the Dallas billionaire funding a harsh attack ad, Harold Simmons.

"We reiterate our request that the Department of Justice fulfill its commitment to take prompt action to investigate and to prosecute the American issues Project, and we further request that the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute Howard (sic) Simmons for a knowing and willful violation of the individual aggregate contribution limits," he wrote.

He called the group's activities "patently illegal."

Bauer made the case that Simmons' group fulfilling its a real nonprofit charter because it hasn't spent any money on anything other than attacking Obama.

The American Issues Project released a statement responding to the letter.

"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, the group'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 group said its ad would continue to air through the end of the Democratic National Convention. Simmons has spent almost $3 million to air the ad, which can be seen on the group's site.

A spokeswoman for the Justice Department, Laura Sweeney, had no comment on the second letter.

It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Bauer has called for criminal investigations and prosecutions into the donors to independent groups critical of Obama, including one supporting John Edwards and another supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. His words did have the effect of scaring their donors and consultants, but haven't yet appeared to result in any prosecution.

Rick Hasen has some more thoughts on the law, suggesting that Simmons, at worst, will face fines after it's too late to matter.

Between this and Obama's 'critical internet response team' acting out to snipe critical news of him, where are all you libs that have been bitching and moaning about free speech, government snooping and thought police, etc., over the last couple of years?

Aggie Hoopsfan
08-26-2008, 08:12 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92PL7400&show_article=1


Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations 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.

Are you shitting me? I'd hate to see him if Leno or Conan make a joke about him...

Cant_Be_Faded
08-26-2008, 08:48 PM
Yoo tink dets bed

Rememba tha time NIN wasn't allowed to perform at the MTV music video awards because they were going to perform "The Hand That Feeds" with an unadulterated picture of GWB smiling in the background?

Mr. Body
08-26-2008, 09:43 PM
I have AHF on ignore but that's almost guaranteed to be stupid.

2centsworth
08-26-2008, 09:46 PM
I have AHF on ignore but that's almost guaranteed to be stupid.

you just admitted to being a wuss.

ChumpDumper
08-26-2008, 09:57 PM
It's not a stupid post, but if fines are possible it seems there may be something to the charges.

Hillary
08-26-2008, 09:59 PM
Listen to my speech right now.

Wild Cobra
08-27-2008, 07:03 PM
Yoo tink dets bed

Rememba tha time NIN wasn't allowed to perform at the MTV music video awards because they were going to perform "The Hand That Feeds" with an unadulterated picture of GWB smiling in the background?

Remember, individual ogaizations can limit the content as they choose. It is there right to do that.

Whn it comes to contribution limits, let the man be chargd. When he takes it to court, the law will be found unconstitutional. That's why they don't press it.

ChumpDumper
08-27-2008, 07:20 PM
Remember, individual ogaizations can limit the content as they choose. It is there right to do that.

Whn it comes to contribution limits, let the man be chargd. When he takes it to court, the law will be found unconstitutional. That's why they don't press it.That's funny.