Obama Demands NRA Ads Be Banned

L.P. Farnsworth · #1 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 03:05 AM

Quote:

This week, Obama's campaign general counsel Bob Bauer wrote seeking to censor the ads at stations in Pennsylvania.

"Unlike federal candidates, independent political organizations do not have a 'right to command the use of broadcast facilities,'" Bauer writes. "Moreover, you have a duty 'to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.'"

"This advertising is false, misleading, and deceptive," Bauer continued. "We request that you immediately cease airing this advertising."

The NRA says Obama's camp are sending out these "intimidating cease and desist letters" to cable operators and television stations, threatening their FCC licenses if they run the ads.

The NRA charged that "Obama and the DNC have been using strong-arm tactics reminiscent of Chicago machine politics to try and cover up the truth and silence NRA by forcing the stations to assist them in hiding Obama's radical anti-gun record."

And now, Obama and the DNC have opened a new front in their assault on your First Amendment rights by calling on their followers to contact these station managers to demand that the stations not run NRA-PVF's ads.

Newsmax.com – Obama Wants NRA Ads Banned

You can take the ward heeler out of Chicago, but you can't take Chicago out of the ward heeler.

saltwn · #2 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.P. Farnsworth

Newsmax.com – Obama Wants NRA Ads Banned

You can take the ward heeler out of Chicago, but you can't take Chicago out of the ward heeler.

I would like to see what ads they're talking about. Is it an ad that says "Join the NRA"? or 'Obama is a putz'?

cnredd · #3 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 04:31 AM

Here's one...I think are a few of them...

YouTube - New NRA Ad - Defend Freedom, Defeat...

Here's the actual threat from Obama's counsel to...not the NRA...but the television stations that run them (Chairman Mao smiles in his grave)...

And the NRA's response with a point-by-point analysis of how Obama's counsel is lying by accusing them of being liars to a third party (the stations)...

You can go through the links as you wish, but I've pointed out one of them previously on this very forum...When the Supreme Court declared DC's handgun ban unconstitutional...

Quote:

And in typical fashion...

Obama Camp Disavows Last Year's 'Inartful' Statement on D.C. Gun Law

Quote:

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama's views, according to Burton, because the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

Oh really?!?!...You're saying that last year's quote on Obama's position was wrong and that Obama never "developed a position"?...

Let's see if this is a lie...

Quote:

When Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was seeking state office a dozen years ago, he took unabashedly liberal positions: flatly opposed to capital punishment, in support of a federal single-payer health plan, against any restrictions on abortion, and in support of state laws to ban the manufacture, sale and even possession of handguns.

“Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” asked one of the three dozen questions.

“Yes,” was Obama’s entire answer.

saltwn · #4 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Here's one...I think are a few of them...

YouTube - New NRA Ad - Defend Freedom, Defeat Obama

Here's the actual threat from Obama's counsel to...not the NRA...but the television stations that run them (Chairman Mao smiles in his grave)...

And the NRA's response with a point-by-point analysis of how Obama's counsel is lying by accusing them of being liars to a third party (the stations)...

You can go through the links as you wish, but I've pointed out one of them previously on this very forum...When the Supreme Court declared DC's handgun ban unconstitutional...

Here is part of the letter as posted by the NRA:

Quote:

A full text of Senator Obama's remarks on the subject is attached. In it Senator Obama voiced his support for the federal assault weapons ban, which was in place from 1994 to 2004. This bill banned only the most vicious types of assault weapons, not "the shotguns and rifles most of us use for hunting", as anyone purchasing a rifle of shotgun in that ten year period can attest. And in that same debate exchange, Senator Obama made clear that he only opposed firearms that were irrelevant for hunting unless "the deer were wearing bullet proof vests".

The letter goes on to say that unlike federal candidates, independent organizations do not have a "right to command the use of broadcast facilities". (CBS vs DNC, 412 US, 94,113) Because "you do not need to air this content, your station bears responsibility when you do grant access."
Felix vs Westinghouse Radio stations ,86 F 2d 1, 6 3rd circut
"Moreover you "have a duty to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising.(there is another reference to law here re License responsibility misleading etc) Failure to prevent the airing of false and misleading advertising may be "probative of an underlying abdication of license responsibility." (another reference to broadcast law is inserted Cosmo vs FCC)
So it was all smoke and mirrors, but the Republican henchmen underestimated the will for Obama's boys to fight back! LOL

L.P. Farnsworth · #5 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

I would like to see what ads they're talking about. Is it an ad that says "Join the NRA"? or 'Obama is a putz'?

There are links to the ads in the OP's link.

L.P. Farnsworth · #6 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.P. Farnsworth

There are links to the ads in the OP's link.

The Federal ruling on advertising doesn't cover politcal speech, which is protected under the Constitution, and in any case the ads aren't false or misleading, so the threats from Obama's hacks are unwarranted and possibly illegal themselves.

saltwn · #7 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L.P. Farnsworth

The Federal ruling on advertising doesn't cover politcal speech, which is protected under the Constitution, and in any case the ads aren't false or misleading, so the threats from Obama's hacks are unwarranted and possibly illegal themselves.

Oh, contrar, mi amigo. Read the letter.

The FCC looks unkindly on ads that mislead the public and since these ads aren't ones the stations must air the stations are responsible for the content.
As for the misleading information itself, look at the bill and you will see Obama never said or voted to outlaw hunting type guns. You don't shoot deer with AK47s and the like.
This was another scare campaign that came back to bite the little evil people.

Obama is within his rights and not at all overstepping his bounds.
I find it quite refreshing that someone comes to the table with eyes wide open and takes on the liars where they live. Good for him.

cnredd · #8 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Oh, contrar, mi amigo. Read the letter.

The FCC looks unkindly on ads that mislead the public and since these ads aren't ones the stations must air the stations are responsible for the content.

Sorry salt, but even YOU know that's bullsh*t...

If the FCC looked "unkindly on ads that mislead the public", you wouldn't find a candidate NOT in jail right now...

saltwn · #9 (**permalink**) 09-30-2008, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Sorry salt, but even YOU know that's bullsh*t...

If the FCC looked "unkindly on ads that mislead the public", you wouldn't find a candidate NOT in jail right now...

The ads run by the campaigns themseves have to be allowed to air, and they're givn a lot of leeway. Beyond that most campaigns try to brush around an issue without making actual acussations. These ads are by private organisations and have the double whammy of stating a old faced lie.
Now normally people don't sue for slander in an election, but maybe they should if the information proves to be false and damaging. I think this is a bold move, but one that has truth and the law on its side.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode