Barack Obama to DOJ: Block terrorist ad

[witchcurlgirl]

Sen. Barack Obama has launched an all-out effort to block a Republican billionaire’s efforts to tie him to domestic and foreign terrorists in a wave of negative television ads.

Obama’s campaign has written the Department of Justice demanding a criminal investigation of the “American Issues Project,” the vehicle through which Dallas investor Harold Simmons is financing the advertisements. The Obama campaign — and tens of thousands of supporters — also is pressuring television networks and affiliates to reject the ads. The effort has met with some success: CNN and Fox News are not airing the attacks.

Obama has also launched his own response ad, directly addressing Simmons' attempt to link him to domestic terror.

The project is “a knowing and willful attempt to violate the strictures of federal election law,” Obama general counsel Bob Bauer wrote to Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney last week in a letter provided to Politico. Bauer argued that by advocating Obama’s defeat, the ad should be subject to the contribution limits of federal campaign law, not the anything-goes regime of issue advocacy.

Bauer’s letter called on the Justice Department to open “an investigation of the American Issues Project; its officers and directors; and its anonymous donors, whoever they may be.”

“This is a sad ploy to circumvent the First Amendment by a campaign who has no arguments with the merits of our ad. It’s the classic maneuver: If you can’t win on the merits, file a lawsuit,” said a spokesman for the American Issues Project, Christian Pinkston, who said his group's non-profit status allowed it to participate in elections as long as it does a majority of policy work, which it plans to do.

A spokeswoman for Keeney, Laura Sweeney, declined to comment on Bauer’s letter.

The Obama campaign plans to punish the stations that air the ad financially, an Obama aide said, organizing his supporters to target the stations that air it and their advertisers.

But the ad continues to air widely. Evan Tracey, who tracks campaign advertising at TNS Media Intelligence, said it has been broadcast 150 times in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Michigan. Federal Election Commission reports indicate that Simmons has spent more than $2.8 million buying ads.

Obama’s campaign has written a pair of letters to station managers carrying the ads.

The letter calls the ad’s attempt to link Obama to terrorism “an appalling lie, a disgraceful smear of the lowest kind on the senator’s patriotism and commitment to the rule of law.”

Airing the ad “is inconsistent with your station’s obligations under Federal Communications Commission regulations,” the letter continues, saying Simmons’ group lacks formal incorporation.

One large group of network affiliates, the Sinclair Broadcast Group — which aired an documentary attacking John Kerry in 2004 — has been running the ads, Obama aides said. The campaign has launched a special effort to pressure Sinclair.

“Obama supporters have now sent more than 93,000 e-mails to the Sinclair stations that have decided to run the ad,” said Obama’s spokesman Tommy Vietor. “Other stations that follow Sinclair’s lead should expect a similar response from people who don’t want the political discourse cheapened with these false, negative attacks.”

Spokesmen for Sinclair, CNN and Fox didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The ad focuses on Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, a Hyde Park acquaintance at whose home Obama attended a gathering early in his political career. Ayers is a complicated figure: professor and adviser to the mayor of Chicago despite not having repented his past as a domestic terrorist with the Weather Underground.

"How much do your really know about Barack Obama? What does he really believe?" asks the ad, which also uses imagery from the Al-Qaeda terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it?" asks the ad’s narrator.

Its financier, Simmons, who made his first fortune in chain pharmacies, was a major donor to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that damaged Kerry in 2004 by questioning his patriotism. He has raised more than $50,000 for Obama's rival, Sen. John McCain, though there’s no evidence that his anti-Obama effort has McCain’s explicit blessing.

Obama has launched a response ad, which addresses McCain directly, and will air in Ohio, Tracey said.

"With all our problems, why is John McCain talking about the '60s, trying to link Barack Obama to radical Bill Ayers?" says Obama’s ad. "McCain knows Obama denounced Ayers' crimes, committed when Obama was just 8 years old."

McCain’s camp, meanwhile, appears to welcome the controversy.

“The fact that [Obama] is launching his own convention by defending his long association with a man who says he didn't bomb enough U.S. targets tells us more about Barack Obama than any of tonight's speeches will,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

Correction: An earlier version of this story said, citing the Obama campaign, that a Roanoke, Va., television station was not airing the ad. That was incorrect; the station, WFXR, is airing the ad.

Obama to DOJ: Block terrorist ad - Ben Smith - Politico.com

[kingcap72]

Good. This is what Obama needs to do. He can't just sit back and let the Republicans swift boat him the way they did Kerry. I'm SHOCKED that Fox News isn't running the ad.

And exploiting 9/11 imagery to try and tie Obama to terrorism is a new low even for the Republicans.

[Hummus]

The ad focuses on Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, a Hyde Park acquaintance at whose home Obama attended a gathering early in his political career.

"Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it?" asks the ad’s narrator.

“The fact that [Obama] is launching his own convention by defending his long association with a man who says he didn't bomb enough U.S. targets tells us more about Barack Obama than any of tonight's speeches will,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

So, is Obama just an acquaintance or a friend with a long association with the man?

Because it doesn't even sound like the person who wrote the article knows.

McCain should perhaps try to make himself look better instead of trying to make Obama look bad.

If someone was going to lie about me and broadcast it nationally, damn straight I would try to block it too.

[kingcap72]

^^I didn't even pick up on that. Good catch. The writer goes from calling it an 'association' to a 'friendship' to a 'long association.' If you're going to make an argument about free speech, you should at least be specific in that speech.

[witchcurlgirl]

You guys need to pay closer attention to the punctuation...



The ad focuses on Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, a Hyde Park acquaintance at whose home Obama attended a gathering early in his political career. Ayers is a complicated figure: professor and adviser to the mayor of Chicago despite not having repented his past as a domestic terrorist with the Weather Underground. (these are the writer of the article's words- he is describing the ad)

"How much do your really know about Barack Obama? What does he really believe?" asks the ad, which also uses imagery from the Al-Qaeda terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. (this is a quote from the ad)

"Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it?" asks the ad’s narrator. (this is a quote from the ad)

[kingcap72]

Whether it's the writer or the people pushing the ad, it's still in bad taste to exploit 9/11 with a smear campaign, and then try to hide behind the First Amendment to do it.

[witchcurlgirl]

I guess free speech is about to go the same way as the 4th ammendment..


He has every right to be angry about this ad...and to film a rebuttal ad.....but we do have a 1st ammendment


Why was it ok when his own campaign produced an ad that Factcheck called a “smear” tying Jack Abramoff to John McCain through Ralph Reed? Hypocritical much?

[kingcap72]

Give me a break. Exploiting 9/11 to try and paint Obama as some terrorist is not in the same league as trying to tie Abramoff and McCain together.

And this isn't about the First Amendment or free speech, but about exploiting terrorism to, once again, control the population with fear. Something the Republicans have been doing for 8 years.

[witchcurlgirl]

Oh ok...free speech only applies to speech when it's agreed with...

It's not right what they are doing, but the ammendment protects them.

You don't get to pick which speech is protected and which isn't, that's the price we pay. It's up to us to sort out the truth.

[Grimmlok]

People are too stupid to do that. Sadly, a population needs a leash.

[kingcap72]

For the love of God, nobody is making a case about free speech. Stop using that to distract from the topic.

And, yes, I know they have the right to say what they're saying, but that doesn't make it right to exploit a national tragedy for some votes, especially when we're coming up on the anniversary of 9/11. That's the point that I'm making.

[witchcurlgirl]

For the love of God, nobody is making a case about free speech. Stop using that to distract from the topic.

And, yes, I know they have the right to say what they're saying, but that doesn't make it right to exploit a national tragedy for some votes. That's the point that I'm making.

and I agree with your point...they are digusting and should be ashamed...

But if they have not broken any laws the speech is protected, even if we may not like what they say. That's the bottom line.

[Grimmlok]

Frankly, misrepresentation of any kind in the media ought to be punishable by fines. Don't they have some sort of government body regulating that?

They don't let KKK or neonazi shit on the airwaves, how is this different

[witchcurlgirl]

Frankly, misrepresentation of any kind in the media ought to be punishable by fines. Don't they have some sort of government body regulating that?

They don't let KKK or neonazi shit on the airwaves, how is this different

If they wanted to get on the air, they would be allowed. The ACLU would defend their right ( see Skokie or Cuffley v. Mickes )

But we only enforce truth when it comes to a product...like in consumer protection...weird, but it's the way it is

[kingcap72]

and I agree with your point...they are digusting and should be ashamed...

But if they have not broken any laws the speech is protected, even if we may not like what they say. That's the bottom line.

Once again, this isn't about free speech or protecting free speech.