New Lefty Group Issues "Warning" To GOP Donors
You may have heard by now that former MoveOn chief Tom Matzzie has set up a new third-party effort with the somewhat unorthodox goal of targeting big GOP donors who support Swift Boat Vet-style efforts on the right.
The group, called Accountable America, is firing off a letter to hundreds of would-be donors warning them of the downsides of supporting such efforts.
We've got a copy of the letter, which you can read right here.
"Many of the leading donors to 501(c) and 527 organizations have had their business and personal affairs closely scrutinized by the media and well funded watchdog groups," the letter says in a not-so-implicit threat. It continues that the result of such probes could be "fines" and "public disclosure of anonymous donors."
The letter also vows that the group "will publicize the political and business relationships and corrupt activities of donors" to such efforts, and it actually has emblazoned at the top the word "warning."
The group describes itself as "non-partisan," which it is, in the sense that it's not legally allied with a party or candidate. But the group appears to be only targeting GOP donors, and its obvious where its sympathies lie.
One potential hitch: Such Swift-Boat-Vet style groups aren't obliged to reveal their donors. So it's unclear whether the group will really be able to target actual donors to such groups on a mass scale, as opposed to just would-be ones.
It's also unclear whether there will be any well-funded apparatus on the right to speak of in the first place -- there's been a great deal of wolf-crying about such groups, and they haven't really materialized in any significant way.
Still, it's kind of an interesting experiment, and it'll be worth tracking.
Sounds good. Bring them hell!
August 8, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like it.
I'm sure the swiftboaters will laugh at it - but I hope to hell it's backed up with real investigation.
I know too much about what goes on with corporate donations and I have to keep my mouth shut.
But by god, someone needs to be watching very fucking closely indeed.
August 8, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Y'all know, don't you: corporations and billionaires have now formed their own PACs.
August 8, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good of you to point this out, Tena.
They're out there and supporting Republicans 10 to 1.
Republicans- The Corporatist Party.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F03E6DD123EF935A15752C1A9629C8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
August 8, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well T Boone Pickens helped fund the Swift Tards last time, I doubt he'll do so again.
Richard Mellon Scaife is having some nasty divorce issues, so his energies may be directed elsewhere.
I don't know how much enthusiasm the deep pockets on the right will have this time around. For one thing chances are good that any money spent will be money wasted. For another do they really want to piss off Obama? This campaign by Accountability America could be the last straw that makes the GOP money men decide to just sit it out.
August 8, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This line is so unintentionally funny that it takes the teeth out of the mailing.
August 8, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good on, MoveOn.org. Now if we could just have a government watchdog doing what they are doing...
August 8, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please don't be naive.
There's plenty - take my word for it.
August 8, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed there is--not specifically wanting to see McCain win, just desperately wanting to see Obama lose.
Nihilism is all they have left.
August 8, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
Not much makes me madder, either. Fucking billionaires- they might have to pay a couple of dollars in taxes - like they pay now? No, they don't. They can afford to not pay and they don't.
And it's all about a couple of tax dollars.
August 8, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta love those Freespeech supporting progressives.
August 8, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's political slander. It's "protected" because it is "political", but it is still slander. And we're not going to take their lies lying down anymore. So they need to know that the left is going to sniff around to find the source of the stench from the right. And they need to held up to the light and left to suffer the consequences of their lies.
August 8, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all free speech - they can say what they want, and I can find out who's paying for it and publicize that. It's all fair game.
August 8, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn right.
August 8, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a good move, but may be meaningless since McCain's certainly shown willingness to smear Obama himself.
http://strategy08.wordpress.com
August 8, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no Free Speech interest in LIES.
LIES are not protected speech.
August 8, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena:
Sorry to say that they actually are.
But I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that a person has a right to attack someone else anonymously (or anonymously pay someone else to attack) and retain their anonymity. That's what we're talking about here.
August 8, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody's saying they can't have their free speech . . .they are just reminding them that free speech does not necessarily mean "speech without repercussions".
Now it becomes more of an opportunity cost decision rather than a testosterone-addled priapic fling.
August 8, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is great, if they put as much emphasis in the follow through as they do in the warning. You know the Repugnantcans are going to use their big dollar donor and corporate arms to fight dirty, so lets suit up and get ready for battle. We can start with a boycott of Walmart for their attempts to influence the election outcome.
August 8, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
At the risk of call forth the wrath of the site (not to mention troll accusations), I believe that this effort is unlikely to be effective, and, more importantly, is wrong. If this was done the other way, we would all be screaming. I agree, it is not illegal, and also agree with the points above that does not implicate free speech in a Consitutional sense. But is inconsisent with the values that I believe the left holds, and even if effective, should not be undertaken.
Being right sometimes means not using every lawful technique to win.
AH
August 8, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My wife and I were videotaped by the police during a protest in 2006, for having the audacity to show our support for our point of view (at the time, it was separation of church and state given that a local megachurch was actively and publicly supporting one candidate). Peacefully, et cetera. We understand that speaking up comes with a price.
We have been taught that there is only one way to survive in the darwinian world that the Republicans have created: Use every single method, tool or process to protect ourselves. Anything less is an invitation to be eaten by the sharks. With republicans, there is only one process that matters: Keep testing, keep looking for weakness, keep trying to grab another advantage. Every one of these tests that is not met with hard resistance is a hint of softness, a place to attack. There is no room for anything less than all out resistance, by every legal means possible.
Every action a normal person takes is recorded in a private database (public databases are subject to FOIA). What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
August 10, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dave Adams wrote:
"I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that a person has a right to attack someone else anonymously (or anonymously pay someone else to attack) and retain their anonymity."
In fact anonymous political attacks are protected by the Bill of Rights, as the Supreme Court held in 1995 in "McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission".
From the majority opinion:
"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views ... Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.... It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation ... at the hand of an intolerant society."
Bottom line: this strategy is unlikely to work. It simply makes the 527s more likely to guard the anonymity of their donors.
(Hat tip: Electronic Frontier Foundation)
http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
August 9, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon Greg the following statement based on one article is sort of whistling in the dark isn't it?
It's also unclear whether there will be any well-funded apparatus on the right to speak of in the first place -- there's been a great deal of wolf-crying about such groups, and they haven't really materialized in any significant way.
I'd keep an eye on that. Just cuz they claim publicly they're not doing it this time doesn't mean they're not going underground with this effort.
August 9, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink