http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=34204
I almost put this in GQ, since there’s likely a factual answer, but of course laws are sometimes open to interpretation as well.
Do these ads violate campaign finance laws or not?
MoveOn’s press release: MoveOn.org Voter Fund Refutes RNC Chair’s False Claims
Probably, but just like your instinct told you, it’s a fine line. Issues are okay to run ads over, but they can’t be construed as attempts to influence federal elections. So, you can say things like “It is important to stop litterbugs.” You cannot legally (with soft money) say “W loves litterbugs, and we need to stop litterbugs,; vote to stop litterbugs.”
Yes, everyone is in love with “campaign finance reform” until it interferes with thier free speech.
Here’s CNN’s coverage, which includes a few good quotes from the RNC’s letter:
RNC tells TV stations not to run anti-Bush ads
The really disturbing part is that the RNC is sending out letters making thinly veiled threats to speak for law enforcement, and telling stations they may be criminally prosecuted if they air material of which the RNC does not approve. That is absolutely impermissible.
Hey, that letter looks pretty familiar. Hmm… oh, yeah! Now I remember! They pulled the same kind of stunt back in July!
“The advertisement in question misrepresents President George W. Bush’s January 28, 2003, State of the Union address…deliberately false and misleading…[the DNC] has no right to willfully spread false information in a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people…your station is under no legal obligation to air [these advertisements]…the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading; therefore, you are obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement.”
It’s probably also tortious interference. Boy, I’d love to be the lawyer for MoveOn.org. I’d have the lawsuit filed first thing Monday morning.
I was wondering myself if this was illegal. Although I wasn’t aware of the legal term, it sure sounded like something that could be a cause of action.
BTW, I just send an email to MoveOn.org suggesting that they consider legal action. Seems like they could get some good free press even if they didn’t win the case.
Surely nobody is surprised by these police-state tactics?
These tactics extend to anyone who speaks against the Bush Administration. Valerie Plame gets outed when her husband criticizes the Administration’s handling of Iraq intelligence. Howard Stern is deemed indecent and taken off the air by Clear Channel around the same time he started criticizing Bush. I don’t think Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter or Ford used these types of intimidation tactics. Ruining careers, destroying lives and reputations. It’s what I would expect in the Mid-east not here. It all started when Attorney General Ass-croft (sic?) said that those who criticize the Administration give “aid and comfort” to the terrorists. I think that was the moment that the United States became an Orwellian state.
Can someone explain what tortious interference is? (From what I gather, it kind of sounds like some SDMB members who start posts like, “I’m not a Mod, but…”
I saw during Fox News Sunday that a group has an attack ad on John Kerry out, as well. Unfortunately, I’m under the weather, and between my coughing fits and cough syrup addled mind, I can’t recall the URL to the group, but it seemed to be a direct analog to what Move On has been doing.
It’s going to be a loooooong year.
There is a common law cause of action called “tortious interference with contract.” I’d have to go look up the elements, but basically, the idea is that you can’t go messing around with other people’s contracts. If you do, you’re liable for damages to the person you’re interfering with.