By: Chuck Muth
Dump Reid PAC
ABOUT THAT FEC COMPLAINT
Remember the movie “Blazing Saddles?”
The bad guys – after sitting around the campfire eating beans and cutting the cheese – decided to send Mongo into town to rub out the sheriff of Rock Ridge. Shortly after his arrival in town, a citizen burst into the sheriff’s office advising that Mongo was busting up the place and begging Sheriff Bart to do something.
When Sheriff Bart began to strap on his six-shooters, his sidekick, the Waco Kid, says, “No, no, don’t do that. Don’t do that. If you shoot him, you’ll just make him mad.”
Perhaps someone should have given Nevada Democrat Party Chairman Sam Lieberman, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s errand boy, the same advice before he allegedly filed that silly FEC (that’s an acronym for Federal Election Commission) complaint against me and the DUMP REID PAC last week.
Let’s start today’s discussion and dissection by stipulating that I have not been officially served with the FEC complaint. Lieberman leaked copies of the alleged complaint to the media without bothering to provide it to me. For all I know, the complaint hasn’t actually been filed and Sam could still chicken out and not go through with it.
That being said, the following response is based solely on reports of the complaint and, therefore, should not be construed as an OFFICIAL response. This is my own personal opinion presented without benefit of review by a competent attorney with expertise in campaign finance law.
With that DISCLAIMER out of the way, let’s get down to business.
First, make no mistake. This complaint is an attempt to chill political speech and intimidate citizens into staying out of the political system. And the complaint relies on a law made by Congress which clearly abridges freedom of speech.
In addition, this is an attack on a PAC – which is an acronym for Political Action Committee, which itself is nothing more than a group of American citizens peaceably assembled for the purpose of expressing a governing grievance; that being, in our opinion, the lousy, incompetent representation of the state of Nevada by Harry Reid in Congress.
Secondly, whether or not this complaint was Reid-directed or Reid-coordinated, this attack is Harry Reid-based.
According to campaign finance reports I reviewed a few weeks ago, Reid’s own PAC contributed at least $250,000 to the Nevada Democrat Party in the last campaign cycle. So Lieberman’s complaint is, at the very least, an effort to curry favor with his party’s chief benefactor, knowing it will please him to no end. It’s like a three-year-old saying, “Look, mommy, I went to potty!”
The Democrats know full well, without it ever needing to be said, that this action is exactly what Harry Reid would probably want done on his behalf. In that sense, Sam Lieberman is nothing more than Reid’s “Ghost Complainer.”
And with that, let’s go swat some flies:
1.) The most significant complaint by the Ghost Complainer centers on the alleged use of Harry Reid’s name in the name of our PAC (an acronym for Political Action Committee).
According to the “Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees” published by the FEC (an acronym for Federal Election Commission), “The name of a nonconnected committee (which the DUMP REID PAC is) may not include the name of any candidate for federal office.”
Why not? Whatever happened to “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech”? Perhaps if we had chosen a more obscene or pornographic name for our committee – perhaps using a different four-letter word beginning with the letter “F” – we’d enjoy greater constitutional protection?
2.) The FEC’s (that’s an acronym for Federal Election Commission’s) campaign guide also stipulates that “a nonconnected committee may not use a candidate’s name under which the committee makes solicitations or other communications to the general public, unless the name clearly shows opposition to the candidate.”
Clearly, the intent of the law is to ensure that the public isn’t misled. For example, had we named the PAC (that’s an acronym for Political Action Committee) “Friends of Harry Reid” and then proceeded to beat up on the guy, the name would clearly be misleading. So I can understand the concern behind the rule.
However….
The Ghost Complainer maintains that the name of our PAC “creates confusion” in the minds of the public. He states that even though only the word “REID” is used in the name of our committee, the content of the information on our website and advertising plainly indicates that we’re talking about “Senator Harry Reid, who is currently a candidate for federal office.”
OK, fine.
But if one can easily discern from the content of our website and advertising that use of the word “REID” in our name refers to Senator Harry Reid, doesn’t the word “DUMP” combined with the content of our website and advertising clearly tell the public that we want to defeat Harry Reid? I mean, what do these morons think the word “dump” means? Flirtation followed by courtship with the intent to marry?
Would someone please explain to me how “DUMP REID” doesn’t “clearly show opposition to the candidate.”
3.) In item #2 of his complaint, the Ghost Complainer references a certain mail piece (Attachment A) which I’ll address fully later in this column, because it will truly be the source of major embarrassment for the Ghost Complainer.
Anyway, the Ghost Complainer complains that on that “public communication” we did not use “the full name” of the political committee. He complains that the disclaimer reads “Paid for by Dump Reid PAC,” using “an abbreviated version” of “Political Action Committee” rather than the full name “Dump Reid Political Action Committee.”
Busted.
It sure appears they got us on that one – as stupidly trivial and bureaucratic as it may be.
Or do they?
You see, we erroneously, for the sake of time and space, didn’t simply use an abbreviated version of “Political Action Committee.” Indeed, the entire “DUMP REID PAC” is an acronym. We didn’t just use an abbreviated version of “Political Action Committee.” We used an abbreviated version of the ENTIRE committee name:
“Decidedly Unhappy Mainstream Patriots Rejecting Evil-mongering Incompetent Democrats Political Action Committee”
You see, when you file your “Statement of Organization” on “FEC Form 1,” there isn’t enough room to print out such a long name. And I assume using an acronym – DUMP REID PAC – for such a long name is as acceptable as the Federal Election Commission using the acronym “FEC” on the very form one is required to fill out to register a committee.
So I screwed up. I should have used teeny-tiny letters and registered the PAC’s – er, I mean Political Action Committee’s full name – which, as you’ll note, doesn’t mention any particular federal candidate’s name – instead of using the acronym. My bad.
Guess I’m gonna have to file another amended “Statement of Organization” on FEC Form 1 and change all the official disclaimers to the full name of the PAC – er, Political Action Committee.
4.) Another item in the Ghost Complainer’s complaint centers on alleged failures to “include a proper disclaimer” on various mail pieces and two websites. One of the two websites included in the complaint is www.dumpharry.com.
Actually, this website is my personal blog written and paid for by me as a private citizen and has nothing whatsoever to do with the DUMP REID PAC.
So much for that complaint.
5.) As for the actual www.dumpreid.com website, Ghost Complainer writes that the disclaimer on the start-up site – “Paid for by Dump Reid PAC” – was “insufficient,” as it didn’t include the mandated 4,297 additional words of meaningless, bureaucratic bull-**** as required by law.
Actually, while the explicit disclaimer on the website’s “Home” page may have been technically insufficient initially when the website was first under construction, the full disclaimer which was completely and fully in compliance with every i-dotting-t-crossing government regulation under the sun has ALWAYS been included on the actual “Donation” page.
In any event, even in his complaint, the Ghost Complainer admits that “As of the date of this complaint it (the DUMP REID website) has been altered and now appears to comply with federal law.”
So much for that complaint.
6.) In his cover letter to the FEC – er, Federal Election Commission – the Ghost Complainer states that “Disclosure laws, a cornerstone of campaign finance law, also…ensure there is no coordination with any candidate.” He maintains that the use of “Paid for by Dump Reid PAC” instead of “Paid for by Dump Reid Political Action Committee” is “especially troubling considering a recent meeting between (Chuck) Muth, Sue Lowden and Colorado GOP Chairman Dick Wadhams.”
First, I have never met with or even talked to Dick Wadhams, who, nevertheless, is not a federal candidate for office. And I was absolutely, positively NEVER in a meeting with Sue Lowden and Dick Wadhams. This accusation is a bald-faced lie and I hereby challenge the Ghost Complainer to prove that I was ever in such a meeting.
Put up or shut up, Sam.
Secondly, Sue Lowden is not a federal candidate for office. She is the chairman of the Nevada Republican Party and will continue to be so until September 30, 2009 when her resignation takes effect. After that time, she may in fact become a federal candidate for office. And if so and at that time, any coordination between the DUMP REID PAC and her campaign would, in fact, be a problem.
But she’s not. So the Ghost Complainer here is suffering from a bad case of “premature speculation,” nothing more.
7.) OK, let’s wrap up with the most embarrassing part of the Ghost Complainer’s complaint – the one which will require a truckload of paper towels to get all the egg off his face.
In item #1 of the Legal Argument put forward in the complaint, the Ghost Complainer notes that “When a federal political action committee distributes more than 500 pieces of mail that are identical or substantially similar, or any other form of general public political advertising, the materials must include a proper disclaimer.”
And the Ghost Complainer claims that on Attachment A included with his complaint, we failed to include a proper disclaimer. But here’s the thing: Attachment A was NEVER MAILED. Not to a single individual, let alone 500 or more.
Take a close look at Attachment A. You’ll notice two things.
First, you’ll notice that this mail piece decidedly does not, as the Ghost Complainer complains, include the full and proper legal disclaimer as required by Harry Reid’s campaign finance law which abridges the freedom of speech.
But now notice something else; the words “getty images” which appear over the photographs depicted in the mail piece. Do you know what that means?
It means this was a DRAFT copy of the mail piece.
Attachment A was absolutely, positively not the final copy. At the time this sample of the mail piece was emailed to a few Nevada reporters, it was still in the design phase. Indeed, the “getty images” words were still on this document because we hadn’t yet paid for the rights to use these images.
Now here’s the funny part.
Since the Democrats stupidly tipped us off by whining about the incomplete disclaimer information on the mail piece before verifying that it had actually been, you know, mailed….we changed and added the complete and accurate disclaimer information on the mail piece before the mail piece actually went into the mail!
Bozos.
They *may* have had us if they’d just kept their big mouths shut.
So as you can see, this entire complaint is frivolous and, at best, trivial. We are in no way, shape, form or fashion trying to deceive or mislead the public. Our intent is to defeat United States Senator Harry Reid and other Democrats like him in next year’s election. Or as one might euphemistically put it, we want to “dump Reid.”
To the extent we may or may not have dotted every “i” or crossed every “t” or properly capitalized every letter in our early communications, we’ll fix those if they haven’t been fixed already. And we might also consider challenging the very constitutionality of this dumb-ass law if necessary, especially the anti-First Amendment part about not being able to use a federal candidate’s name in a political communication, even if it only appears in an acronym.
But let me leave you with this final, closing thought:
If Harry Reid and Congress can make participating in our political system this complicated, this bureaucratic and, frankly, this dangerous – as we are, in fact, subject to severe financial penalties, fines and otherwise if convicted for “violating” these campaign laws – can you just image what they will do to our health care system if we allow them to force upon us their threatened “public option.”
Just remember, the post office is the “public option” for mail delivery.
And if Harry Reid and the Ghost Complainer thought they were gonna shut us down, shut me up or shut us out of his race next year with this frivolous complaint, they obviously have no idea who they’re dealing with.
The Decidedly Unhappy Mainstream Patriots Rejecting Evil-mongering Incompetent Democrats PAC lives!
If you’d like to direct others to this response, they can reid it…er, read it on my personal Dump Harry blog here: http://www.dumpharry.com/?p=75
And if you’d like to contribute a few shillings to our effort to defeat Harry Reid next year, just click on the “Contribute Now” button below.
FAMOUS LAST WORDS
“You better be (expletive) right! You don’t (expletive) know me! You’re lucky I’m not shoving this ball down your (expletive) throat.”
- Tennis player Serena Williams, exercising loudly and angrily her First Amendment free speech rights at the U.S. Open yesterday after the line judge ruled she’d committed a foot-foul. Thank God she didn’t mention Harry Reid’s name in her obscenity-laced rant. She might have gotten in big trouble.
