If you ask anyone whether or not an individual should be able to join together with other individuals to talk about whatever they want – including politics – free of government limits, they will probably respond along the lines of, "Of course, that’s my First Amendment right of free speech and association."
Unfortunately, sometimes when the speech supports an issue or cause with whom an individual disagrees, human nature sometimes clouds the pro-free speech perspective. And campaigns naturally seize upon those feelings in order to denigrate and discredit speech that may aid their political opponent. The response by the Obama campaign to the independent expenditure group, American Leadership Project, which dares to speak out about political issues, is a clear example of such tactics.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe yesterday likened the group to a "Swift Boat-style…smear campaign."
Below is the text of American Leadership Project’s so-called "smear campaign":
"If speeches could create jobs we wouldn’t be facing a recession. But it takes more. As Senator, Hillary Clinton passed legislation to bring investment and jobs to struggling communities and worked to end tax breaks for corporations sending jobs overseas. Her economic blueprint is endorsed by Governor Strickland. Tell Hillary to keep working on these solutions for the middle class."
ALP spokesman Roger Salaazar explained, "The American Leadership Project was established to amplify the primary election’s focus on issues of importance to the middle class – the economy, jobs, education, and the mortgage crisis, among others."
What is the harm in letting ALP speak to the voters about these issues?
