The End of Dissent

After Governor Sarah Palin said that her executive experience as a mayor and a governor had prepared her to serve as Vice-President, the Obama campaign responded by claiming that he had equal or greater experience as an executive—due to his leadership of a presidential campaign, which has more employees and a much larger budget than Wasilla, Alaska. If Obama’s primary experience as a leader is the running of his campaign, then it is essential to ask: What has his campaign leadership unveiled about what an Obama administration might look like?

The answer: frightening things. During the past year-and-a-half of campaigning, Senator Obama has dispatched his legal goon squad to threaten, intimidate, and brow-beat its opposition into silence, with threats of prosecution for those associated with rival campaigns. Led by the Obama for America General Counsel, Robert F. Bauer, the Obama campaign has waged a bare-knuckles, win-at-all-costs, Chicago-style campaign, attacking free speech and free political association.

In response to the establishment of a Pro-Hillary Clinton 527 independent political group, the Obama campaign issued a memo (dated February 20, 2008) called “The American Leadership Project and the Law of Swift Boats,” stating,“Liability for violating the federal campaign finance laws is both civil and criminal. Any investigation, like the investigations conducted after 2004, will involve the Project’s officers, staff and donors. Because the FEC specifically addressed and publicly explained the applicable standards in the recent past, the violation of those standards in this instance presents a clear indication of knowing violations of the law. Once again, the issues raised here affect all who knowingly participate in a scheme to violate the rules: the officers, the staff and the donors.” The next day Obama for America General Counsel Bauer reiterated the threat to those associated with or contributing to The American Leadership Project was in violation of the law. Bauer warned: “There’s going to be a reckoning here. It’s going to be rough — it’s going to be rough on the officers, it’s going to be rough on the employees, it’s going to be rough on the donors.”

On August 8, Obama received some additional support with intimidating opposition groups. Tom Matzzie, an Obama supporter formerly associated with the AFL-CIO, MoveOn.org, and the Campaign for America’s Future, announced the creation of Accountable America with the aim of stopping “the ‘swiftboat’ groups before they get off the ground. These people need to be stopped.” Matzzie emphasized, “Our focus will include Freedom’s Watch, Newt Gingrich’s American Solutions 527 and other efforts as they materialize” and that Accountable America would send a “mailing warning nearly 10,000 Republican donors of the consequences of funding organizations that break or skirt the law.”

The Obama campaign would continue its practice of intimidating and threatening donors to political organizers in response to the establishment of the American Issues Project (AIP), an anti-Obama independent political group. On August 21, Bob Bauer sent letters to both the Station Managers and Deputy Assistant Attorney General John C. Keeney, in response to an advertisement by AIP, questioning Senator Obama’s tie to former Weather Underground domestic terrorist William Ayers. In the letter to Station Managers, Bauer said that airing the AIP advertisement would be in violation of Federal Communications Commission regulations. In the letter to Assistant Attorney General Keeney, Bauer wrote that he urged and expected “the Department of Justice to fulfill its commitment to take prompt, vigorous action to enforce against criminal violations of the campaign finance laws. We ask that it begin here, by initiating an investigation of the American Issues Project; its officers and directors; and its anonymous donors, whoever they may be.”

Four days later, on August 25, Bauer again wrote Deputy Assistant Attorney General Keeney about the AIP, describing “a knowing and willing violation of law on the part of its contributor, Howard Simmons.” Bauer concluded by requesting “that the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute Howard Simmons for a knowing and willful violation of the individual aggregate contribution limits.”

The American Issues Project responded to the Obama campaign forcefully in their own letter to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Keeney. AIP Counsel Cleta Mitchell wrote that Bauer’s letters were politically motivated because “The Obama campaign dislikes the content of AIP’s advertising – but is unable to contradict the facts contained in the ad.” Mitchell wrote that and the requests by Obama counsel Bauer to “you and your Department are a gross misuse of the power and prestige of that organization.” Mitchell concluded by declaring that “AIP has violated no provision of law. The donor(s) to AIP have violated no provision of law.”

The Obama campaign also directed a concerted effort against radio shows and stations that invited anti-Obama guests to discuss the election. For example, on August 27, Stanley Kurtz, an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute and the Ethics and Public Policy Center, appeared on Milt Rosenberg’s show on WGN 720 Chicago. The Obama campaign was invited to have a representative appear on the Senator’s behalf, but declined. Instead, the Obama campaign sent out an email to his supporters via his “Obama Action Wire” encouraging them to call the show and oppose Kurtz’s appearance. According to Guy Burton, a National Review Online contributor and friend of the show’s producer, Zack Christenson, “The experience was surreal, amusing, and chilling. In a matter of hours, a major national campaign had called on its legions to bully a radio show out of airing an interview with a legitimate scholar asking legitimate political questions.” The callers accused Rosenberg of being one-sided for not inviting an Obama surrogate—despite the fact that he had—and Kurtz of slandering Obama—without citing any examples — and threatened to complain about Kurtz’ appearance to WGN’s ownership and advertisers.

The Obama campaign tried to re-create their protest of Kurtz’s appearance on Milt Rosenberg’s show when David Freddoso, a National Review political reporter and author of the recent bestseller The Case Against Barack Obama, was scheduled to be a guest on September 15. Obama sent out another email over his “Obama Action Wire” asking his supporters to respond in the same way as they had when Rosenberg “hosted unapologetic smear artist Stanley Kurtz’s incoherent ranting about Barack and William Ayers” by creating a “flood of calls and emails” to the show. Obama’s website described Freddoso as a “vicious partisan” and something who “thinks he’s an expert on everything.”

The next week, on September 23, KMOV 4 Missouri reported that the Obama campaign announced it’s Missouri “Truth Squad” led by Senator Claire McCaskill and including St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCullough, and Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer. According to the report, the “Truth Squad” said that “they plan to respond immediately to any ads and statements that might violate Missouri ethics laws.” Attorney Jennifer Joyce added that “we’re here to respond to any character attacks.” While the Obama campaign contended that they were not using these law enforcement personnel to threaten opponents with legal prosecution, hearing a Circuit Attorney say that she will “respond” to any criticisms is certain to have a chilling effect on political discourse.

In response to the “Truth Squad,” on September 27, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt issued a statement saying that using Missouri law enforcement personnel to “threaten and intimidate his critics,” had “attached the stench of police state tactics” to the Obama campaign. Governor Blunt said, “What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.” Governor Blunt compared Obama’s actions to the Sedition Acts and suggested that Obama needed to “grow up.”

Former Clinton appointee, Assistant United States Attorney Andrew McCarthy, suggested that the participation of prosecutors and law enforcement officials in Obama’s “Truth Squad” may be in violation of the federal Hatch Act (Title 5 of the U.S. Code), which prohibits executive officials from using their positions to interfere with federal elections. Of Obama’s strong-armed tactics, McCarthy said that: “The chill wind was bracing. The Taliban could not better rig matters. The Prophet of Change is only to be admired, not questioned.”

These examples just scratch the surface of the Obama campaign’s systematic attack on the First Amendment and participatory democracy. Behind a veil of Hope, Change, and a new type of politics, Obama and his legal team, led by General Counsel Robert F. Bauer, have unleashed Gestapo tactics to threaten, intimidate, and bully their political opponents. If campaigns are the prologue for how a White House will be run, what measures and tactics would a President Obama be willing to use to silence opposition voices? Would President Obama unleash Attorney General Deval Patrick to prosecute talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham for speaking against the administration? Would President Obama instruct FCC Chairman Henry Waxman to cancel the station licenses of shows that invite guests who speak against the administration? Not since the administration of Woodrow Wilson has free speech been in such danger, and the silence is deafening.