The Obama Letter, Continued
A quote from someone I know - “I think that the whole asking a station to not air something is minuscule. If you’re running a campaign or any sort of marketing thing, why is it considered bad to ask someone “hey, that isn’t accurate, so could you not run it?” I mean, if they tried to threaten legal action or are in some way hindering their 1st amendment rights, sure, get up in arms. Yes, they did cite the fact that radio stations are responsible and can be held accountable for anything they broadcast on behalf of independent political groups, and asked that they not broadcast things which are blatantly false. But, they also stated in their letter that if they do find the ads fit for air and continue to air them, that they could at least talk to their campaign so they could basically try to convince them not to.
…
Now, if they did try to force something, threaten legal action or suing, then yeah, I could see that being blown up into something worth discussion. But polite and non-threatening inquiries and requests? Come on, mountain out of an anthill type thing. Especially when there is actual real things which could be discussed or brought to peoples’ attention which warrants concern or alarm.”
But the letter wasn’t sent by campaign staff, it was sent by a lawyer and quoted case law. As a lawyer, I’ve drafted similar letters quoting case law, and it wasn’t because the client wanted just to sit down and talk with the recipient of the letter. The letter is an attempt to bully the stations … basically saying, I’ve line up my lawyers on this, do you really want to have to line up yours? And you have to remember, the Obama campaign is bigger in scope and resources than small TV affiliates in Midwestern states. And furthermore, Obama isn’t just any potential litigant, he’s a potential litigant that might end up being President of the United States, which means he could have some power over the licensing of television stations. When Presidential candidates have their lawyers send legalistic letters to stations invoking their licensure obligations and suggesting they are in breach of them, this is a threat, not a gentle inquiry or an invitation to tea.
