If truth in advertising laws applied equally to politicians as they do to businesses, then Ackerman, Inc. might be hauled into court for its latest hit piece on Chris Norby. Yet, politicians hold themselves to lower standards than they do the entrepreneurs and business people who create the prosperity that politicians oft claim credit for. Thus, candidate Chris Norby and taxpayers will have little recourse against Ackerman, Inc. for the misleading political smear that they’ve shoveled into the mailboxes of unwitting Republican voters.
Both political and commercial speech fall under the protection of the First Amendment. Yet, commercial speech is regulated to protect consumers against false, deceptive, or misleading speech. Political speech is not subject to those restrictions, despite the fact that politicians wield coercive power over voters that is far more dangerous than the threat of private businesses engaged in consensual agreements with consumers. Thus, the state prohibits businesses from false, deceptive, or misleading speech, including speech that “while literally true, is false, deceptive or misleading”. Ackerman, Inc.’s hit piece on Chris Norby falls into this category.
Ackerman, Inc. is the political enterprise headed by former Senate Republican leader “Tricky Dick” Ackerman, its Nixonian CEO. Much like the late Richard Nixon, this Tricky Dick appears animated by personal hatreds and petty grudges acquired during his political career. But, he also acquired political capital in the form of political influence, connections, and fund raising ability – his stock in trade. Now, Tricky Dick seeks revenge against a hated political rival (Chris Norby) by force-feeding voters his new product line – his puppet, Linda Ackerman.
Now, Ackerman, Inc. has slimed Norby with a deceptive and misleading hit piece. Trick Dick’s sparsely-worded mailer attacks Norby over sexual harassment allegations made against him by a disgruntled former county worker. Ackerman, Inc. alleges that Norby was found guilty by a jury of his peers, a decision they claim was overturned on appeal on a mere “technicality”. Herein lies the deception.
Courts are extremely reluctant to overturn a jury’s finding of fact except when no reasonable jury could have reached that conclusion. Courts must review mixed questions of law and fact de novo – with a panel of judges sitting as the jury to decide questions of fact. Thus, the verdict was not set aside on mere “technicality” (as Tricky Dick contends), but because the jury got it wrong. Thus, Ackerman Inc.’s hit piece is deceptive and misleading.
Ackerman, Inc.’s onslaught to fill the AD 72 seat vacated by the disgraced Mike Duvall has shined a light on the realities of political races – endorsement shams, questionable campaign funding, and shadowy political operators. Yet, it should be noted that these are the rule (in both major parties) and not the exception. Thus, it comes as no surprise that Californians hold the governor and lawmakers in such low esteem.
Art, could you please check on this item I recall on a post over at Red County by Matt C. I remember he stated that he had been at the Norby/Ackerman debate in the City of Orange and that he was there with his unsteady cam.
Why has he not posted that tapping of the debate? If democracy is best served by free and open debate before the people, then let the tape be released on the playing field of democracy and let the people decide.
However, if he does not release the tape in its entirety, then an argument could and should be made about his bias towards the Ackerman camp.
From all of my sources, as well as a member from the CWLA, that were there that night, Linda Ackerman BOMBED. In fact, the CWLA member relayed that at their meeting later in the week, there was nothing but gloom over the fact that Linda Ackerman is an embarrassment. That to endorse Ackerman would ultimately demean their organization as Ackerman cannot win and has no idea what she is doing.
So, will Matt post the entire tape of the debate or will he, by omission, deny democracy and the right of the people to really see the candidates, in their own words and abilities, or lack there of, so that the people can decide who is worthy of their vote?
Since I cannot find the debate on line anywhere, I can only assume that people know it is damning to Ackerman and are with holding it.