CNN Cries over GOP Wave
So, continuing the leftist post-election trend going back to at least 2000 in Florida, CNN has decided that the only way the GOP won this election was through cheating. How? By violating campaign finance laws, in spirit if not in fact.
Their logic goes something like this: Campaign finance laws forbid specific candidate campaigns from coordinating with super-PACs and other non-candidate organizations. "Someone" was tweeting what looked like poling data. Since every Dick, Jane, and Harry wouldn't have been able to decode the tweet, it MUST be collusion.
Now they don't know who "Someone" was. And by their own admission, they didn't find out before the accounts were deleted. That would seem to be a hole in their case, but maybe that's just me.
Now, there are lots of problems with the whole article, so you should read it for yourself. But I was taken by two things. The first was the almost reflexive "they cheated!" reaction.
This article took some time to research. The twitter accounts they reference were not widely known, so this wasn't something that was "general knowledge." They had to have been looking for it.
Yet it is not Republicans who are known campaign finance law violators, unlike several prominent Democrats, the President among them (remember 2008 and not checking if donations were foreign? Making a campaign speech on foreign soil? Yeah- not legal.)
Projection, as they say, is not just a river in Egypt.
The other thing that I noticed was they spend a whole lot of time saying, basically, "Those wascawy Wepubwicans! They used Twitter effectivwy! That must be iweagle!" And then, for support they go to leftists.
Case in point, this quote:
"It might not be legal. It's a cutting edge practice that, to my knowledge, the Federal Election Commission has never before addressed to explicitly determine its legality or permissibility."
That comes from one Paul S. Ryan, cited as "senior counsel at the Campaign Legal Center."
CNN references the Campaign Legal Center as "a nonpartisan organization," but, this being CNN, I figured I'd double-check their math. If you follow that link above, it goes to the CLC's "Election Center." Among their blurbs are "what the Court got wrong in [Citizen's United]," and bragging that their president played "an incredibly important role" as the "'personal lawyer' to comedian Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central's 'The Colbert Report.'"
Does anyone seriously think that a center which sees being the "personal lawyer" for the Colbert Report and opposing Citizen's United is "nonpartisan?" Seriously?
But the best part of that quote might be the idea that the FEC should have to rule on whether something is "explicitly" legal. Umm... that's not how the law works. Something is legal unless it is "explicitly" illegal. Murder? Explicitly illegal. We don't have to ask if any given killing is "explicitly" legal. It is legal (assumed innocent) until it is proven to be illegal.
This is how leftists work. Does anyone seriously think we'd be hearing anything about this if it had been Democrats and they had won an historic majority?
Perhaps the best part is the end of the article, wherein CNN acknowledges that, yes, this is probably legal. I'll leave with that quote (emphasis mine):
Despite the questionable nature of the Twitter communications, experts doubt the FEC will do much to act. Members of the commission have been deadlocked along party lines for years and attorneys for these groups often develop legal arguments before engaging in such practices to avoid acting outside the bounds of the law, Ryan said.
"In many instances, we have very sophisticated political players with really good lawyers who know where the legal lines are and know where to push them to their client's advantage," he said.