It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
On Aug. 21, 2008, the conservative American Issues Project ran an ad highlighting ties between candidate Obama and Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. The Obama campaign and supporters were furious, and they pressured TV stations to pull the ad—a common-enough tactic in such ad spats.
What came next was not common. Bob Bauer, general counsel for the campaign (and later general counsel for the White House), on the same day wrote to the criminal division of the Justice Department, demanding an investigation into AIP, "its officers and directors," and its "anonymous donors." Mr. Bauer claimed that the nonprofit, as a 501(c)(4), was committing a "knowing and willful violation" of election law, and wanted "action to enforce against criminal violations."
Also on Sept. 8, Mr. Bauer complained to the Federal Election Commission about AIP and Mr. Simmons. He demanded that AIP turn over certain tax documents to his campaign (his right under IRS law), then sent a letter to AIP further hounding it for confidential information (to which he had no legal right).
Strassel notes that Bob Bauer, the Obama campaign (and later White House) general counsel, wrote letters to the Department of Justice in August 2008 attacking a conservative 501(c)4 called the American Issues Project for running an ad that highlighted Obama's connection to former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer did not stop there; he also contacted the Federal Election Commission. That same month, a left-wing activist created a 501(c)4 called Accountable America that was designed to intimidate GOP donors.
Earlier that year, Strassel notes, during the Democratic Party primary, Bauer had used the same tactics against a left-wing 501(c)4 that supported Hillary Clinton, and another against one supporting John Edwards. As even Ben Smith, then of Politico and a noted defender of the Obama campaign, noted:
It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Bauer has called for criminal investigations and prosecutions into the donors to independent groups critical of Obama, including one supporting John Edwards and another supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. His words did have the effect of scaring their donors and consultants, but haven't yet appeared to result in any prosecution.
What happened was that a group of Jewish non-profit organizations had organized the rally and invited both Gov. Palin and Sen. Hillary Clinton. Clinton initially agreed to attend, but the Obama campaign was terrified at the prospect of her sharing a stage with Palin and sending a signal that Democrat women left frustrated by Clinton's loss might switch parties. So they pressured Clinton to withdraw--and then pressured the Jewish groups to deny Palin a platform, claiming that the rally was now "partisan." Jewish members of the Democratic National Committee reportedly made threats to challenge the groups' IRS non-profit status.."
Responding to those who dare commit blasphemy against The One, Obama’s campaign has unleashed lawsuits and urged prosecution by no less than the Justice Department, enlisted elected officials to threaten and intimidate his foes, and deployed its vast internet e-mail list to silence bloggers and radio talk shows.
In Missouri, Obama allies, from a U.S. Senator to a local sheriff, threatened criminal proceedings against television stations than air anti-Obama commercials. Such “police state tactics” prompted Gov. Matt Blunt to charge Obama’s campaign with “abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism.”
First aimed at internet blogs supporting Hillary Clinton, Obama supporters swamp certain unfriendly blogs with “spam” complaints. When those complaints reach a threshold, Google’s Blogger platform renders the blog inoperable. Bloggers must then wait for Google to make an individual determination whether or not the accused blog is legitimate.
Originally posted by elouina
...
Now I saw all of this all along. So why was everyone blind to this until now?
Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by Ex_CT2
...
I could go on and on.
Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by Ex_CT2
Yes but everything was so, "in your face". Like what about the 2011 transparency award Obama got? It was given in a private meeting with no press allowed. This really perplexed the group that was giving him the award that showed up and found no press. In fact it was blocked from Obamas calendar also. Oh and did you know that they want to take his award back?
Originally posted by Ex_CT2
ETA: Don't get me wrong based on my initial answer. It's not like I voted for Obama in 2008 (I wrote in my own candidate). I was merely pointing out that he actually DID sound hopeful and fresh there for a while. Truthfully, I wasn't paying that much attention to what he was actually saying--and little to what he was doing. He just sounded kinda ... I don't know ... innocuous..
The IRS requested, in an audit, the names of the conservative Leadership Institute’s 2008 interns, as well as specific information about their internship work and where the interns were employed in 2012, according to a document request the IRS sent to the Leadership Institute, dated
The IRS requested:
“Copies of applications for internships and summer programs; to include: lists of those selected for internships and students in 2008.
– In regards to such internships, please provide information regarding where the interns physically worked and how the placement was arranged.
– After completing internships and courses, where were the students and interns employed?”
Originally posted by links234
FEC vs. Citizens United was after 2008. Back in the days where the BRCA prohibited things like what you're describing.
Not very scandalous if they were breaking the law at the time.
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by elouina
You're talking about the election in 2008. I'm talking about the Citizens United case in 2010 that struck down portions of the BRCA that prohibited 501(c) spending on certain campaigns. The BRCA was still enforcable in 2008, it's completely reasonable that the Obama campaign believed the law was being broken at the time.
I think you're trying to build off of nothing with this. Would you have preferred the campaign ignore lawbreakers?
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by elouina
Your OP isn't about an ad within a timeframe, it's about a non-profit organization spending certain money on a certain ad, which was addressed in 2010, not 2007.
The Obama campaign thought the law was being broken. After the Citizens United case it wouldn't have mattered. In 2008 it mattered.
The American Issues Project is a 501(c)4 nonprofit corporation. It is permitted by law to air a political ad provided that the majority of its spending is nonpolitical. It cannot accept money from corporations and it must identify the donors that finance its ads in reports to the Federal Election Commission. Pinkston said the group has set aside money to carry out non-election related work to meet the legal requirements. It filed a report identifying Simmons as its sole donor for the ad last week.
The American Issues Project is a political action group organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, so that it can engage in limited amounts of civic campaigning, but cannot legally advocate for or against candidates.
The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturns this provision, but not the ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending.
Ed Martin, president of the American Issues Project, responded "The American Issues Projects applauds the Department of Justice for refusing to treat as criminal the exercise of free speech during an election. The Obama campaign's tactics have been recognized for what they are - an attempt to bully a legitimate message off the air through intimidation and scare tactics."(1) The American Issues Project's ad examines the links between Sen. Obama and unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers.
In another attack on free speech, the Obama campaign demanded TV stations in Pennsylvania and Ohio stop airing a National Rifle Association ad critical of Obama. The letter, dated Sep. 23, 2008 is “frightening” and “dangerous,” a campaign finance expert said. “When a candidate threatens a broadcaster with government sanction over the content of an ad, it is very worrisome to the First Amendment and the guarantee of free political debate,” said Sean Parnell, president of the Center for Competitive Campaigns, an organization that focuses on money in politics.(2)