August 4-6, 2014
Aug 04 03:46 Pelosi PAC doubles down on dishonesty Aug 04 17:03 Erhardt threatens guns rights activist Aug 05 03:26 McFadden vs. Franken, mining edition Aug 05 04:33 Dorholt's dishonest statement Aug 05 12:24 ACCWA enacted via executive fiat Aug 05 15:01 Acceptable Racism? Aug 06 15:27 TakeAction Minnesota's smear campaign, Part I Aug 06 17:38 TakeAction Minnesota's smear campaign, Part II
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Pelosi PAC doubles down on dishonesty
There's now enough evidence to prove that Nancy Pelosi is as corrupt a Democrat as Harry Reid or President Obama. Last week, Pelosi's PAC, which supports Democrat congressional candidates and incumbents, put together an ad so dishonest and defamatory that WDIO and KSTP, a pair of TV stations, pulled the ad. That didn't stop Ms. Pelosi, though. Instead, Ms. Pelosi's PAC doubled down by essentially running the same ad as a pop-up ad on RealClearPolitics. Here's one of the ads from Pelosi's PAC:
If dishonesty were diamonds, Pelosi's PAC would be filthy rich.
Let's get something straight from the start. Pelosi's PAC doesn't care about honesty. If they have to throw out integrity to defeat a Republican, that's what they'll do. While Democrats specialize in smearing Republicans, they aren't that good at it.
When the House Majority PAC accused Stewart Mills of wanting tax cuts for his "wealthy friends," I exposed that lie in this article in less than an hour. All it took was a quick visit to Stewart's issues page on his campaign website. I proved that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats had lied again.
Stewart's position is that tax simplification would immediately help small businesses by dramatically reducing a ssmall business's compliance costs. Reducing compliance costs frees up capital, which can then be used to expand the business and create jobs.
There's no question that Democrats see Mills as a threat. First, Pelosi's PAC put together a defamatory ad against him. Sunday night, I saw another dishonest ad from the Democrats smearing Stewart Mills, this one paid for by AFSCME PEOPLE. The ads were virtually the same. They even used the same narrator and virtually the same dishonest statements. AFSCME PEOPLE's ad will certainly be taken down as quickly as the Pelosi PAC ad was last week.
The TV station running the AFSCME PEOPLE ad, in this instance WCCO-TV, would be in the same negative legal situation as KSTP and WDIO would've been in if they hadn't pulled the ad. When a candidate runs an ad, the TV station can't pull the ad, which means the TV station can't be sued. When an independent expenditure organization or a PAC runs a defamatory ad, the TV station can pull the ad, which puts the TV station in legal risk.
Pelosi's PAC and other Democratic front groups will undoubtedly keep attacking Stewart Mills because Rick Nolan can't defeat Mills without driving Mills' turnout down. The Democratic machine doesn't care if they're fined for defaming a Republican candidate after the election. Their only priority is winning that election.
Posted Monday, August 4, 2014 3:46 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 04-Aug-14 08:51 AM
Just FYI, the Campaign Finance Board has issued new rules to greatly speed up consideration of violations. It still can't cope with last-minute ambush advertising, of course. Nor can we depend on any level of scruples from the liberal do-anything-say-anthing crowd. Best we can do is call them on it. After enough times, hopefully the public will figure out they are a bunch of miserable liars.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Aug-14 11:18 AM
Jerry, Thanks for that additional information. In this instance, though, the FEC has jurisdiction because it's a federal race. I don't have high expectations of them. However, I have high expectations of WCCO's corporate attorneys. If WCCO continues running this ad, they'll get sued. If that happens, it won't be cheap.
I suspect they'll do the 'right thing' because it's cheaper, not because it's the right thing to do.
Erhardt threatens guns rights activist
If the DFL had the slightest bit of integrity, they'd run Ron Erhardt out of their party. They won't do that because they don't have any integrity. This photo (H/T Mitch Berg ) shows how demented some DFL legislators are:
Ron Erhardt isn't a nobody. He chairs the House Transportation Policy Committee. When the chair of a committee threatens to blow an activist's head off, it's proof that he's either violent or naturally mean-spirited. In this instance, it's likely both. Mitch poses a perfectly legitimate question:
I'm trying to imagine what'd happen if a pro-life Representative had said that to a volunteer from Emily's List? If a fundamentalist Christian rep had said something like that to a gay marriage advocate?
I won't pretend that Republicans are pure as the driven snow. I know that isn't the truth. I don't have to pretend, though, that the Twin Cities media have a history of downplaying things when Democrats do outrageous things.
Ron Erhardt is one of the most mean-spirited politicians ever elected to the Minnesota legislature. He's a despicable person. If the DFL supports him, that's proof that they're willing to overlook that type of mean-spirited statement to win an election.
I hope that the GOCRA volunteer who was threatened files charges against Rep. Erhardt.
The Twin Cities media is on trial, too, though not to the same extent that Rep. Erhardt is. If they don't vigorously report on this disgusting incident, that will be an indictment against them, too. When a high-ranking public official threatens a person, that's a major story.
That isn't hardball politics. That isn't passionately debating an issue. That's a high-ranking politician threatening someone's life. I'd ask Twin Cities political reporters if they've ever heard about a high-ranking politician threatening someone. I'm betting they haven't.
That's a good hint that this story is newsworthy.
Posted Monday, August 4, 2014 5:03 PM
Comment 1 by Steve Schafer at 05-Aug-14 09:32 AM
I don't want to be in the position of defending Ron Erhardt. His recent commentary is despicable and truth be told, should have been reported to the police as a threat.
But I used to know Ron Erhardt. I'd see him at GOP party functions. He wasn't polished - but he wasn't rude. I think that a lot of that changed after his wife died about 5-10 years ago. His wife was an incredible woman and I think the person who kept him on track. He didn't seem like the same person after she died. He, to me, seemed more cantankerous than he used to be.
Again, I'm not excusing what Erhardt said to the GOCRA volunteer. I hope the GOP uses it against him. He's a traitor to the GOP (just like Judy Dutcher was) and we need to make him pay for it.
I just posted this to give a little perspective as to the Ron Erhardt I knew many years ago and the Ron Erhardt we all see now.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Aug-14 12:30 PM
Steve, thanks for that information. You're right that it doesn't excuse Erhardt's behavior. It just explains it.
McFadden vs. Franken, mining edition
Bill Hanna, the editor for the Mesabi Daily News, recently did a phone interview with GOP Senate candidate Mike McFadden/ Here's the link to Hanna's article. Here's the key portion of Hanna's interview with Mr. McFadden:
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mike McFadden says federal regulation is 'government at its worst.'
And he said the June decision by the Environmental Protection Agency to overrule its own previous decision on a water quality variance for Mesabi Nugget is emblematic of that problem.
'This is a classic example of how broken government is right now. We should be good at regulation ... identify an issue and move quickly to correct it if needed ... but we're horrendous at it,' McFadden said in a telephone interview last week.
The environmental activists that run the EPA and the Minnesota DNR thrive on overregulation. It's what gives radical environmental organizations like MCEA, the Sierra Club and Conservation Minnesota the opportunity to extend the length of these reviews in the judiciary.
Let's face facts. The MCEA, the Sierra Club and Conservation Minnesota are integral parts of the DFL. Without their activism and contributions, Democrats couldn't survive.
Clearly, the EPA's decision to overrule its own decision was a political decision. It wasn't a scientific decision. It's how the DFL plays its game of supporting miners publicly, then undermining miners without getting their fingerprints on the knife that stabbed the miners. Further, it's proof that the EPA's chief responsibility is to thwart industry by shifting the goalposts to meet its political needs.
Hanna also 'interviewed' Sen. Franken via email. Here's what Franken's campaign had to say:
U.S. Sen. Al Franken's re-election campaign was asked by email to comment on McFadden's claim that there is too much and too heavy-handed regulation in Washington.
While he didn't respond specifically to that issue or to McFadden's contention that the senator is tied too closely to environmental special interest groups, his campaign did voice strong support and for the future of PolyMet.
'Senator Franken supports mining. He's fought to protect mining jobs by fighting illegal dumping and ensuring that we use more American made steel. He believes the PolyMet project will create jobs and that it will be done in an environmentally responsible way,' said Ryan Furlong, Franken campaign spokesman.
Franken doesn't support mining. He hasn't lifted a finger to make PolyMet a reality. He's sat quietly by while his friends in the environmental movement trampled Polymet's attempt to safely create hundreds of mining jobs.
If Sen. Franken enthusiastically supports mining, why didn't he talk about it during his rambling 26-minute acceptance speech at the DFL State Convention? If Sen. Franken enthusiastically supports mining, why didn't he mention it on his campaign's issues page ? Sen. Franken talked about green energy, health care, jobs and the economy, veterans, education, seniors, agriculture and rural issues, equality and civil rights and, finally, consumers, privacy & net neutrality.
Noticeably missing from Sen.
Here's proof that it's a safe project:
The project is currently in the comment review period of the supplemental draft environmental impact statement, which has now been going on for several months. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources commissioner has called the PolyMet SDEIS a 'solid document" and even the EPA gave it good marks. If the SDEIS is certified by the lead government agencies, the permitting process can begin.
This isn't about science. It's about environmental activists taking extraordinary steps to prevent mining. The regulatory regime isn't meant to protect natural resources. It's there to help environmental activists thwart mining companies.
Mr. McFadden is asking the right questions:
McFadden said there are far too many federal regulations dealing with natural-resource based projects such as PolyMet and far too many regulators involved.
'I'm tired of environmentalists presenting false choices. The EPA kowtowed to the environmentalists (on the Mesabi Nugget variance issue). The company and the MPCA worked closely with the EPA and went through all the proper channels. And then the EPA revoked their own ruling without good reason. Why?,' McFadden asked.
Rangers need to ask themselves 2 straightforward questions. First, is this their grandparents' Democratic Party? Next, and most importantly, how would the miners know that Al Franken will fight environmental activists for the miners' right to safely mine?
I'd argue that this isn't the Rangers' grandparents' Democratic Party. In the 1950s, Democrats were industrialists. The 21st century's DFL is anti-blue collar, anti-industrialist. Finally, I'd argue that proof doesn't exist that Franken will fight environmental activists so that mining can once again make the Range a hotbed of prosperity in Minnesota.
Posted Tuesday, August 5, 2014 3:26 AM
No comments.
Dorholt's dishonest statement
Zach Dorholt's statement in Mark Sommerhauser's article is utterly laughable:
Dorholt is abiding by the public subsidy. He decried Knoblach's decision not to as a case of campaign cash run amok. "Who out there isn't going to say they're sick and tired of more money in politics?" Dorholt said. "This is just another example, I think, of campaigns getting out of control with spending."
First, Dorholt isn't abiding by the spending limits because he's in favor of spending less on campaigns. He's abiding by it because he's done a terrible job raising money. Next, Dorholt doesn't have to raise much money because DFL front groups like the Alliance for a Better Minnesota, aka ABM, will spend tons of money to keep his seat in DFL hands. In 2012, estimates were that pro-DFL organizations dumped more than $300,000 into this district to defeat King Banaian.
To be fair, pro-GOP groups spent lots of money on King Banaian's behalf in 2012.
The point is that Mr. Dorholt didn't speak out while tons of money poured into the district from DFL front groups. He was silent as a mouse then because he was the winning end of the money war.
If Mr. Dorholt wants to prove he hates money in politics, he can tell his friends in DFL front groups to not spend tons of money in his district. While he can't coordinat with ABM or other likeminded organizations, there's nothing improper about him telling DFL front groups to stay out of his district.
That's proof that Mr. Dorholt's stand isn't principled. Rather, it's based on whether he thinks DFL front groups like ABM or pro-DFL PACs pour money into his race. A quick look at Mr. Dorholt's campaign finance report shows that a high percentage of Dorholt's contributors are from New York and California. Just 2 contributors are from Minnesota. Two other contributors are from North Dakota.
The other point is that Mr. Dorholt has raised $4,600 from PACs but just $500 from Minnesotans. When you're raising 3 times as much money from PACs as you're raising from Minnesotans, it's easy to see who's bought and paid for by special interests. Hint: it isn't Jim Knoblach.
Dorholt was a rubber stamp for Gov. Dayton and Speaker Thissen. I don't need to be represented by someone who votes like he's representing Minneapolis. Minneapolis's priorities are different than St. Cloud's priorities. In fact, they're dramatically different.
Thus far, Mr. Dorholt's biggest 'accomplishments' in the legislature have been voting for the biggest middle class tax increase in Minnesota history, voting to spend $77,000,000 for the Senate Legislative Office Building instead of voting to use that $77,000,000 to repair St. Cloud's roads and bridges, voting to force independent businesswomen into public employee unions and voting to repeal part of that massive middle class tax increase.
St. Cloud doesn't need a rubberstamp for the Democrats' agenda. We need a real representative who cares about St. Cloud's priorities.
Posted Tuesday, August 5, 2014 4:34 AM
No comments.
ACCWA enacted via executive fiat
The late Jim Oberstar submitted a bill in 2010 to amend the Clean Water Act so that the EPA would have jurisdiction over every drop of water anywhere in the United States. If you think that's hyperbole, you'd better think again :
The 'waters of the U.S.' issue is back. H. R. 5088, America's Commitment to Clean Water Act (ACCWA) , was recently introduced by House Committee of Transportation Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.)
Like Oberstar's previous bill, ACCWA does two things. First, it eliminates the term 'navigable' from all sections of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The term 'navigable waters of the U.S.' is used more than 80 times in the CWA. NACo continues to oppose the removal of 'navigable' from the act, because of the danger its absence poses to years of hard-won jurisdictional parameters.
Second, ACCWA removes the reference to 'activities affecting' those waters and redefines 'waters of the U.S.' by using a hybrid of current agency regulatory definitions. While ACCWA uses language based on existing agency regulations for a 'water of the U.S.,' it is not identical to existing regulations. Furthermore, certain sections of the existing regulations were deleted and new language was added to the 'waters of the U.S.' definition in ACCWA.
This is important because Oberstar's bill didn't go anywhere in 2010 and because the Obama administration is attempting to implement these changes through an EPA regulation:
Today, Torrey Westrom submitted comments to the Environmental Protection Agency over the EPA's proposed rule to redefine 'waters of the U.S.' - or navigable waters - under the Clean Water Act.
The new rule would redefine navigable waters as any body of water that is adjacent to or near a larger downstream water source, making it subject to federal regulations and permitting. The rule would also allow the EPA to seek comment on other waters, which could later be subject to regulation as well.
Sen. Westrom submitted this comment:
The Environmental Protection Agency's latest proposal to change the definition of 'navigable waters' under the Clean Water Act is a naked attempt to expand their own authority beyond the scope of the law and will have devastating consequences for Minnesota's farmers, families, land owners and small business owners.
Congress was clear when it passed the Clean Water Act that the EPA's authority would cover 'navigable' waters, but this new rule will extend the EPA's authority to everything from small ponds to ditches in fields. This is government overreach, pure and simple. Federal officials are throwing the legal definition to the wayside and creating nearly limitless regulatory authority, which will hurt our communities. Any changes should be made through the legislative process, where voters can keep government accountable, rather than through a federal agency's rule making.
Farmers and small business owners in places like where I live in Elbow Lake, and our surrounding agriculture communities in northwest Minnesota, cannot afford any more burdensome regulations handed down from the federal government. After a historically harsh winter and with a sluggish economy, the last thing America's agriculture sector needs is unnecessary burden that will stifle business. We know our towns, down to the ponds and ditches in our fields, better than any unelected bureaucrat from Washington.
The EPA should ditch the proposed rule, which will harm farming communities and families.'
This is the key paragraph from Sen. Westrom's comment:
Congress was clear when it passed the Clean Water Act that the EPA's authority would cover 'navigable' waters, but this new rule will extend the EPA's authority to everything from small ponds to ditches in fields. This is government overreach, pure and simple. Federal officials are throwing the legal definition to the wayside and creating nearly limitless regulatory authority, which will hurt our communities. Any changes should be made through the legislative process, where voters can keep government accountable, rather than through a federal agency's rule making.
Democrat front groups are undoubtedly cheering the EPA's proposed rule. These Democrat front groups, like the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy and other like-minded environmental activist organizations want the federal government to have jurisdiction over every drop of water in the US, regardless of whether it's navigable water that forms the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin or whether it's a low spot on private property in Idaho that occasionally has water in it.
The Clean Water Act, aka the CWA, specified which waters were covered by the Act. Because the CWA was passed by Congress and signed by the President, the legislation's scope is limited. If they'd wanted the federal government to control all of the water in the United States, they should've written that into the bill. That's where the Sierra Club's, the Nature Conservancy's and the League of Conservation Voters' plan falls apart.
Had that been written into the text of the CWA, people would've been outraged.
Further, the executive branch isn't allowed to change the clearly written language of a signed bill. Only the legislative branch is allowed to do that. The executive branch's responsibility is to "faithfully execute" the laws that Congress enacts. If they don't like specific provisions in a law, their only constitutionally sanctioned option is to talk Congress into changing that language.
Sen. Westrom is right in criticizing the federal government's plan to govern through executive fiat. This isn't a kingdom. It's a constitutional republic with a clearly written Constitution.
Frankly, I don't care if the EPA likes or hates the CWA. Their chief responsibility isn't predicated on whether they like or hate a bill. Their chief responsibility is to faithfully execute the laws that are on the books, not the laws they wished were on the books.
Originally posted Tuesday, August 5, 2014, revised 06-Aug 5:57 AM
No comments.
Acceptable Racism?
Democrats routinely get away with saying the nastiest racist things imaginable. That's helped create the image that there's such a thing as acceptable racism. Here's a notice to the bigots in the Democratic Party and in the media (pardon the redundancy): There's no such thing as acceptable racism. Last weekend, a Democratic operative tweeted some racist slurs against Elaine Chao , otherwise known as Mrs. Mitch McConnell:
This past weekend, as Senator McConnell spoke to supporters at the Fancy Farm event in Kentucky, he sought to confront the 'War on Women' rhetoric of his Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, by noting his wife's accomplishments. 'And the biggest asset I have by far is the only Kentucky woman who served in a president's cabinet, my wife, Elaine Chao,' he said to applause from the crowd.
It didn't take long for Kathy Groob, the founder of the pro-Democrat PAC Elect Women, to start mocking Chao's heritage on Twitter. 'She's not from KY: She is Asian and [President George W.] Bush openly touted that,' Groob said. In other tweets, Groob referred to Chao as McConnell's 'Chinese wife,' and said McConnell is 'wedded to free trade in China.'
Ms. Groob was instantly fired but the thought remains. This wasn't an innocent mistake. Ms. Groob is a racist. She intentionally directed racial slurs at Chao.
This isn't the first time that Democrats have shown their bigotry. Last year, here in Minnesota, former DFL rising star Rep. Ryan Winkler posted this racist comment on Twitter :
This information proves that the Democratic Party is racist:
And this isn't even the first time Democrats in Kentucky have attacked Chao's ethnicity. Last year, a Democratic super PAC called Progress Kentucky tweeted that McConnell's marriage to Chao ' may explain why your job moved to #China .'
Democratic bigotry gets a pass with the national media in the sense that they don't question Democrats' commitment to racial equality. That's gotta end ASAP. I don't buy the notion that the vast majority of Democrats are 'racially enlightened.' After all, they're the party of Jim Crow :
During the Reconstruction period of 1865-1877, federal law provided civil rights protection in the U.S. South for freedmen, the African Americans who had formerly been slaves. In the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures, having used insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the White League and Red Shirts, to disrupt Republican organizing, run Republican officeholders out of town, and intimidate blacks to suppress and discourage their voting. Extensive voter fraud was also used. Gubernatorial elections were close and disputed in Louisiana for years, with increasing violence against blacks during campaigns from 1868 on. In 1877, a national Democratic Party compromise to gain Southern support in the presidential election resulted in the government's withdrawing the last of the federal troops from the South. White Democrats had regained political power in every Southern state. These conservative, white, Democratic Redeemer governments legislated Jim Crow laws, segregating black people from the white population.
They're also the party of the KKK :
Although there was little organizational structure above the local level, similar groups rose across the South and adopted the same name and methods.[16] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government passed the Force Acts, which were used to prosecute Klan crimes.[17] Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts suppressed Klan activity. In 1874 and later, however, newly organized and openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and the Red Shirts, started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting and running Republicans out of office . These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining political power in all the Southern states by 1877.
Apparently, the Democratic Party's racism has morphed slightly. They're displaying their bigotry these days by attacking Asian-Americans like Ms. Chao. The Democrats' bigotry is most unattractive.
Most importantly, it's essential that Republicans call out the Democrats' bigotry and the media's apathy towards looking into the Democrats' lengthy, disgusting history of bigotry. That's the only way to treat bigotry. It's either unacceptable all the time or it's acceptable in all its forms.
Count me in the it's-always-wrong category. It's time the Democrats got questioned about whether they're as committed to racial equality as they say they are.
Originally posted Tuesday, August 5, 2014, revised 06-Aug 7:41 AM
No comments.
TakeAction Minnesota's smear campaign, Part I
TakeAction Minnesota's fundraising email is clear proof that DFL front groups a) don't care about the truth and b) won't hesitate in smearing anyong they think of as a threat to their power. Here's their latest fundraising e-letter:
Dear Gary,
In a 2013 speech, 8th district congressional candidate Stewart Mills said that all the talk about the rich not paying their fair share and corporations dodging taxes singled him out as a deadbeat, and was "personally offensive."
But his billionaire friends at Hubbard Broadcasting won't air an ad that uses his own words to call him out.
And here's the kicker: the owner of Hubbard Broadcasting, Stanley Hubbard, is a major donor to Mills' campaign and a friend of the Koch brothers. When a media station owned by someone who has maxed out to a candidate is keeping voters from knowing where that candidate stands, something's not right.
We're getting ready to launch a door-to-door canvass across the district to reach out to voters and give them the facts about where Stewart Mills stands and talk about what really matters to working families.
Mills doesn't think that he and his fellow millionaires should have to pay more in taxes and he doesn't support raising the federal minimum wage. Billionaires like Stanley Hubbard shouldn't get to decide whether or not voters know the truth - but you and I both know that, as long as they own the media, they have an outsized voice in our elections.
That's where you come in.
Thanks for standing with us,
Dan and the whole TakeAction Minnesota team
Mr. McGrath's distortions are noteworthy. First, the ad was shut down because the ad, which was initially paid for by Nancy Pelosi's PAC, is an outright distortion that I wrote about in this article . Here's what Stewart Mills actually said:
What happened in the last round of elections, where you had folks saying that ' the wealthy, the wealthy are not paying their fair share, that there's all these loopholes and they don't pay any taxes and we have to make them pay more. Well, you know what? I'm gonna speak for myself and then I'm going to allude to a few others here. We've paid for all of our taxes. We reinvest the money we make into our business.
How come we are not generating the jobs in Northeastern Minnesota that we otherwise would? Well I can tell you why. Because the overwhelming group of people that run businesses, that have the ability to employ people are taxed at that personal rate. They are the villains, they're the bad guys. They're the ones that quote are not paying their fair share. They're the ones quote that ' the 2%, the 1%, whatever percent you want.
To be singled out as a deadbeat is personally offensive.
Pelosi's PAC took those 128 words and turned them into this 26-word sentence:
: folks saying that 'the wealthy, the wealthy are not paying their fair share...the 2%, the 1%, whatever percent you want: is personally offensive.
Honest, thoughtful people would see that Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic front groups like TakeAction Minnesota didn't just take Stewart Mills' words out of context. They spliced his words together to create a sentence he didn't say.
Minnesota has an option this November. If they vote Democrat, they're voting for the political party that a) didn't hesitate in smearing Republicans, b) didn't hesitate in smearing media companies who have a legal obligation to the public and c) had to run a massive smear campaign on multiple levels because they couldn't run on their accomplishments.
Here's KSTP's legal obligation:
The false ad bankrolled by AFSCME/House Majority PAC against Stewart Mills does not constitute a 'candidate use.' Under Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 412 U.S. 94 (1973), and Nat'l Conservative Political Action Comm., 89 FCC 2d 626 (1982), your station is not obligated to air any advertisements from third parties, such as the AFSMCE/House Majority PAC, as third parties have no guaranteed right of access to air their advertisements on your station. Thus, broadcasting stations are not protected from legal liability for airing a false and misleading advertisement sponsored by the AFSCME/House Majority PAC. Moreover, broadcast licensees have a legal responsibility to review and to eliminate any false, misleading, or deceptive materials contained in advertising.
KSTP and WDIO could've kept running Pelosi's disgustingly dishonest ad...if they wanted to lose a high dollar lawsuit.
That Stan Hubbard has contributed to Republicans isn't news any more than Alida Messinger contributing to the DFL is news. What's different here is that this DFL front organization knows the facts behind the Pelosi ad getting tossed. Rather than admitting that Pelosi's ad is dishonest, TakeAction Minnesota is engaging in a nasty smear campaign against a media outlet they don't like.
Originally posted Wednesday, August 6, 2014, revised 07-Aug 7:46 AM
No comments.
TakeAction Minnesota's smear campaign, Part II
While writing this post , I thought about the Democratic Party's disgusting tactics. First, here's what caught my attention:
But his billionaire friends at Hubbard Broadcasting won't air an ad that uses his own words to call him out.
And here's the kicker: the owner of Hubbard Broadcasting, Stanley Hubbard, is a major donor to Mills' campaign and a friend of the Koch brothers. When a media station owned by someone who has maxed out to a candidate is keeping voters from knowing where that candidate stands, something's not right.
TakeAction Minnesota is one of the DFL's front organizations. They, along with organizations like the Alliance for a Better Minnesota and AFSCME PEOPLE, specialize in smearing Republican candidates. In this instance, they're unloading both barrels on Stewart Mills.
There's more to this than just a smear campaign.
That's bad enough but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Let's remember that Al Franken enthusiastically signed a letter to the IRS telling them to crack down on TEA Party organizations. We know that the IRS and other government agencies made life a living hell for Catherine Engelbrecht .
The DFL, like the Democratic Party nationally, is the party that's deployed 'weaponized government' to harass people that don't agree with them. They used the IRS, OSHA and the ATF to harass TEA Party organizations. They've used the EPA to intimidate private property owners.
It isn't a stretch to think that the DFL might organize a boycott of KSTP. Further, it isn't a stretch to think that Sen. Franken's friend Chuck Schumer might ask the FCC to look into KSTP's broadcast license. They unleashed the IRS against the TEA Party. Why wouldn't these senators use other government agencies to harass their political enemies?
Just the threat of a boycott by the DFL would have a chilling effect on stations. Having advertisers leave their station because TakeAction Minnesota and other DFL front groups is a threat stations would have to take seriously.
While this would be the first time that TakeAction Minnesota has organized a boycott against a business, it's old hat for AFSCME :
Last month, Dawn Bobo, owner of Village Dollar Store in Union Grove, Wis., was asked to display a pro-union sign in her window. Ms. Bobo, a self- described conservative Republican, refused and received a letter from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees asking her to reconsider. 'Failure to do so will leave us no choice but do [sic] a public boycott of your business,' the letter said.
It isn't coincidence that AFSCME PEOPLE (Public Employees Organized to Promote Legislative Equality) is running the same defamatory ad that got pulled from KSTP and WDIO.
Why would anyone think that these thugs wouldn't attempt to intimidate businesses into not criticizing DFL front groups when they run their smear campaigns? Contrary to Mitt Romney's statements, these aren't "nice people we simply disagree with." These Democratic front groups are despicable, dishonest people that can't be trusted because they won't hesitate to use government as a weapon against their political enemies.
Posted Wednesday, August 6, 2014 5:38 PM
Comment 1 by Steve Schafer at 06-Aug-14 11:09 PM
Gary-
I tried to e-mail you thru your website - but I didn't see the online form.
I have a possible story for you regarding the HD48B primary between Sheila Kihne and Jenifer Loon.
Can I get your e-mail so I can forward you the info? Please reply to me via my private e-mail.
