Democrats Attack Free Speech

As I noted previously, the Democratic National Committee is on the warpath against US Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH) for her recent statement implying that the really-in-the-news Rep. John Murtha is a coward. For a couple of weeks now, they've been collecting donations and making plans to post a couple of billboards (design pictured at right) near Schmidt's office. Their idea, as a recent email from democrats.org states, is that this will show "Republican leaders [that they] need to learn they cannot get away with dishonoring the service of veterans to score political points."

OK, fine. But today's email was way over the top. It turns out that the Lamar corporation, the owner of the billboards the DNC wants, has decided against accepting the contract. The DNC's page on the matter has the details and says

By rejecting these billboards, Lamar has limited your right to be heard. They've stood up to silence millions of Democrats who believe that attacking veterans for political gain is disgusting, and they think they can get away with it because they own nearly every billboard in the district.

Tell Lamar to let us know immediately whether they intend to honor its contract -- and if not, why. Fairness and the public interest demand no less.

So reading this you'd think that Lamar is in breach of contract. Not so, says the letter the DNC wrote to Lamar, but which you have to click a link from the main page to read [emphasis mine]:

The DNC was told by your Huntington regional manager that Lamar is refusing to honor the contract because the advertisements are "too negative." In addition to refusing to honor the contract for the Portsmouth billboards, Lamar, through its Cincinnati office, refused to accept the same advertisement for placement on billboards in Cincinnati.

While Lamar's form contract reserves to the company the right to refuse to run a billboard advertisement, Lamar's conduct in this instance raises serious questions about whether the company is unlawfully or improperly using corporate resources to favor or benefit the Republican Party or Rep. Schmidt.

So here's the heart of the matter: Lamar, the legal owner of the billboards, exercised its legal and contractual right to deny the DNC's business. In return, not only are they being yelled at about censorship, but the DNC seems to be accusing them of a crime (i.e., making an illegal in-kind corporate contribution to a political candidate).

This is NOT censorship. Lamar owns the property the DNC wants to rent and has final say over what goes there. The DNC could make big banners and organize a parade or demonstration outside of Schmidt's office, hire a plane to fly such a banner all over Ohio, etc. These would all be permissible types of speech. But taking away Lamar's right to choose what goes on its property is repulsive.

Let's say I have a "Republicans Are Cool" sign on my lawn. One day, a DNC van rolls up and demands I put up a sign that says,"Shame on Rep. Christopher Shays." I should have the right to say no and not be accused of censorship for doing so. The DNC apparently believes that Lamar is not to be afforded this basic right.

Shame on them.

Tags: Democrats, Schmidt, DNC, Democratic National Committee, Murtha, Campaign Finance, Howard Dean, First Amendment, Censorship