On 9/27/10, Smith, Brad <BSmith@law.capital.edu> wrote:
Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to complain that these ads are being
paid for by a "shadowy group" that won't disclose it donors and which is run
by a Republican consultant. That's that. No need for a new law that
infringes on privacy and allows vengeful politicians opportunities to
retaliate.
This kind of anonymity means "we can do unto you, but you can not do
the same unto us."
(Nor may you boycott us, nor impact our specific personal social
reputations by showing the way we operate is unseemly).
Since when is turnabout not fair play? When the original attack is by
shadowy millionaires or billionaires?
Because these billionaires are almost entirely men, it shows once
again that anonymous attacks are destructive of the social fabric:
These "men" won't come out into the open and fight like men, much less
like gentlemen. (This is directly analogous to terrorist attacks,
except that terrorists usually claim responsibility)
Are they hiding because they are so fearful of the genre of political
harassment they are so eager to dish out to others?
The word cowardly applies to people who attack from hidden places,
and it applies with great force to those who attack from hiding with
no real fear for their lives if they were to operate above ground.
I'm sure they don't think of themselves as cowards, they instead think
of themselves as masters of the universe with "no back talking"
allowed from others.
Paul Lehto, J.D.
P.S. The above would be an example of what Brad Smith recommends
(attacking the shadowy anonymous groups of donors). I did so by
showing how they are akin to political terrorists except that they are
less brave than even cowardly terrorists. But I do think it would be
superior for the anonymous donors to be known so a public debate can
ensure on the MERITS between the real parties in interest and not a
satellite complaining process concerning the procedure used for the
cowardly attacks.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp
________________________________
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Paul Gronke
Sent: Sat 9/25/2010 6:48 PM
Cc: election-law@mailman.lls.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Check out DeFazio tries to find out who is
behindmysterious attack ads
Both the message and the messenger should be debated in a free and open
democratic society.
===
Paul Gronke
Paul.Gronke@gmail.com
This email sent from a mobile device.
On Sep 25, 2010, at 10:21 AM, JBoppjr@aol.com wrote:
Click here: DeFazio tries to find out who is behind mysterious attack ads
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/24/AR2010092406094.html>
This is a good example of how "disclosure" would divert attention from the
message to the messenger. Rather than debate the ad, DeFazio want to debate
the group. Jim Bopp
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law