PDA

View Full Version : POLL - Considering lawsuit against news outlets (CNBC, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc)




RonPaulCentral
10-11-2007, 07:19 PM
This message is intended to test the waters to see if there is initial support for something I am highly considering.

-------

It is now beyond obvious that the parties involved in producing and broadcasting the Republican debates have an agenda. I am thinking about filing a lawsuit against the involved parties so that I can use subpoena power to obtain notes,
internal memos, emails and contract documentation to establish what parties exactly are responsible. Once you find out who is directly responsible then you will find out what they are receiving or giving and to whom to get it done.

I think between the various parties we will find a stinking mess.

I talked to my attorney today about this and we agreed -- he said that "discovery" can certainly be used to bring out a lot of "dirty laundry" and that in this case if enough people are involved they would probably quickly make concessions to "sweep it away"

So here is a very basic outline of what I am thinking.

#1: I will seed the lawsuit with $25,000 of my own money.

#2: I ask a minimum of 1000 supporters to become either co-plaintiffs or supporters of the lawsuit to the tune of $100 each. (More would just pack more initial punch)

#3: Each supporter pledges to provide $100 more for the next 4 months resulting in a total provided of $500

This would provide $525,000 for a significant discovery which based on a VERY simple lawsuit with just a few complaints can keep it inexpensive and allow us to use subpoena powers to expose just what is going on. This wouldn’t be the government but private companies. Employees are not usually good at being coordinated to create "mass deceptions" and there is frequently someone in the inside that will leak things (like missing memos) because they really believe in what you are doing or just hate their job.

The backdoor deals and what I think would ultimately perhaps expose some conspiracy issues would embarrass a lot of people. I kind of wonder how certain advertising commitments from certain candidates compare to airtime.

In addition if it can be show that the news media outlets made "unfair" deals their provided assistance could possible be considered "in kind" financial support and a huge violation of FEC rules.

So what do you think folks you want to help me work towards finding out just who is behind this nonsense?

Brett

PS: I know the thought will come up -- any monies left would be returned to the donating parties evenly.

me3
10-11-2007, 07:21 PM
Can we do this after the election?

The campaign needs all of the financial support we can muster. And a lawsuit will be a lot of negative energy, without positive publicity.

Akus
10-11-2007, 07:22 PM
RPC, can't you give that $25000 to Ron Paul?

$2300 to his actual campaign, the rest for the meetup in your area. Look around, people have great ideas and no money to make them reality. Give that money to someone who wants to build a stand on some show or something.

There is no need for lawsuit when, other then Ron Paulers, nobody's watching the debates.

JPFromTally
10-11-2007, 07:23 PM
No. As much as we hate what the MSM is doing they are private companies that can televise whatever the heck they want.

What next, demanding a "fairness doctrine."

Make your voices known with your money and your vote.

American
10-11-2007, 07:23 PM
Sounds interesting, Im no lawyer but there are private companies. Do they have a responsibility to be fair and balanced. Fox news already took the "truth" to court and won. There is no law that say they have to be honest. Because its a Republican debate there might be some wiggle room for clarification but I think it would go back to them being a private company.

I would do this but Im so broke I cant even pay attention....:(

FreedomLover
10-11-2007, 07:27 PM
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

RonPaulCentral
10-11-2007, 07:28 PM
No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

Did you mean yes?

LOL

me3
10-11-2007, 07:28 PM
Folks, they want to distract and frustrate us. They wants us to waste time obsessing about coverage instead of spreading the message.

Get out there, get active and donate!!! That's the only way we are going to win.

RonPaulCentral
10-11-2007, 07:29 PM
Folks, they want to distract and frustrate us. They wants us to waste time obsessing about coverage instead of spreading the message.

Get out there, get active and donate!!! That's the only way we are going to win.

Who is they?

Hook
10-11-2007, 07:31 PM
Well, we would loose for sure. And the lawyers would get tons of money that could have gone to the campaign. And we would look like whiny loosers.
Hmmm.........

me3
10-11-2007, 07:32 PM
Who is they?
The people you want to sue! Don't play their game, change the rules!

Ann Kobialka
10-11-2007, 07:36 PM
no, set up a private way for those of us that are trying out here to access your money. Seriously I lost everything in Katrina, I'm 55, relocated to a fixer upper, I waitress, donate $100 a month to the campaign out of my tips. Have a meetup group that could dearly use some help on a huge 10 day state fair we have rented a booth at. You know thousands of slim jims and yard signs to give out maybe a thousand t shirts to sell, couple thousand ron paul balloons and a couple of helium tanks to fill them with ect ect pm me if you would consider helping Thanks Ann

wbbgjr
10-11-2007, 07:37 PM
We have to win the support of the media to win the election. The internet doesn't reach enough people for us to ignore the mainstream media just yet.

Suing them will only set us back. As much as I do believe the media has a bias towards Ron Paul, I believe they are slowly coming around. They will give coverage where the money is at... Right now there are 8 neocons on the stage so that's where the money is at, but notice how we are getting more coverage with the more money we raise.

paulitics
10-11-2007, 07:39 PM
I think a boycott is better, but for many other issues than the debates. And of course, this should be done seperate from Ron PAul's name.


As far as the FEC and debates, Im not a lawyer, but I do think this has some merit with political debates, as far as equal time given, etc. If they are unfair, they would have to give a disclaimer as to their bias. This has nothing to do with their coverage before or after, just during the debate, because it is a national election. This is different than the fox lawsuit where a private company can lie, mislead, etc. I think there are different rules regarding debates. I would wait until after the elections to do anything, and include all candidates that were treasted unfairly, not just one.

klamath
10-11-2007, 07:40 PM
Spend that money on grass roots in NH or Iowa. 25,000 would buy a lot of TV, radio and newspaper ads! We win those states and don't worry they won't ignore RP anymore! It will be RP on center stage at the debates and he will be all you hear. They will be freaking scared at that point.

FreedomLover
10-11-2007, 07:42 PM
Spend that money on grass roots in NH or Iowa. 25,000 would buy a lot to tv, radio and newspaper ads!

Voice of reason here.

paulitics
10-11-2007, 07:44 PM
Spend that money on grass roots in NH or Iowa. 25,000 would buy a lot to tv, radio and newspaper ads! We win those states and don't worry they won't ignore RP anymore! It will be RP on center stage at the debates and he will be all you hear. They will be freaking scared at that point.

I agree. I wish people would rally towards NH, Iowa, and MI with the same energy that we obsess over this stuff.

Eli
10-11-2007, 07:45 PM
actually, win or loose this would create a nice little firestorm. It doesn't even have to involve ron paul. Just media corruption drawing mad attention would draw questions about it and inevitably people will catch ron paul in the wake as a primary example.

strategically though I wouldn't target all of them, then they will all censor it (the media gets sued every day but who hears about it?) I'd file against one or two major ones and let the others pick up on it, then go after them next and let the previous victim take their revenge by publicizing it.

I still agree, a 25k donation to the nh and iowa effort would be a much much bigger benefit. With 25k you can reach nearly a quarter of any state. Thats huge!

Ron Paul Fan
10-11-2007, 07:47 PM
All of this talk about consulting attorneys completely baffles me!!!!!!!!! Hey Mitt Romney, I mean Ron Paul Central, was exactly will this acheive? It seems like a losing proposition and not worth the effort. The notion that this will even get off the ground is proposterous! As others have said, DONATE! We're almost at 80k today! Let's keep spreading the word and not get involved in these frivilous lawsuits! Ron Paul!

RonPaulCentral
10-11-2007, 07:48 PM
I think a boycott is better, but for many other issues than the debates. And of course, this should be done seperate from Ron PAul's name.


As far as the FEC and debates, Im not a lawyer, but I do think this has some merit with political debates, as far as equal time given, etc. If they are unfair, they would have to give a disclaimer as to their bias. This has nothing to do with their coverage before or after, just during the debate, because it is a national election. This is different than the fox lawsuit where a private company can lie, mislead, etc. I think there are different rules regarding debates. I would wait until after the elections to do anything, and include all candidates that were treasted unfairly, not just one.

That is my point. If equal time is not given then there is a bias which would provide unbalanced access - and this access is worth $$$$.

BTW folks, if I do this I am not dragging Ron Paul into it -- I am approaching it as an equal access for ALL candidates.

I feel that I as a citizen am not given objective coverage and because of that I feel certain candidates receive additional compensation over others.

kylejack
10-11-2007, 07:49 PM
NO. Free speech. Dr. Paul would oppose this lawsuit. Now go pass out some slimjims to make up for this terrible idea.

RonPaulCentral
10-11-2007, 07:49 PM
I still agree, a 25k donation to the nh and iowa effort would be a much much bigger benefit. With 25k you can reach nearly a quarter of any state. Thats huge!

What makes you think I am not doing something? :D

lynnf
10-11-2007, 07:50 PM
No. As much as we hate what the MSM is doing they are private companies that can televise whatever the heck they want.

What next, demanding a "fairness doctrine."

Make your voices known with your money and your vote.

actually if it's broadcast, it's over the public airwaves - so they are supposed to be accountable. as for printed media, that doesn't apply.

lynn

fedup100
10-11-2007, 07:51 PM
It needs to be done. I am in. Unless we break the back of the control of the MSM we will never have a free election in this country.

They may be private companies, but they are and have conspired to control elections and defraud the public in this so called free nation, Discovery alone would be a stench no one could stand.

If this is not done, then all Politics should be banned from these private entertainment brainwash machines.

All political information will be provide through the internet and the T.V. can take a hike. "They" are already moving into the same control on the net, such as Drudge. We must never allow it.

max
10-11-2007, 07:52 PM
Majority Vote Does Not Indicate Proper Course Of Action..

Common Sense Does...do It!!!

kalami
10-11-2007, 07:56 PM
give me the money and i'll build us a robot that will incinerate all non-believers

RonPaulCentral
10-11-2007, 07:58 PM
actually if it's broadcast, it's over the public airwaves - so they are supposed to be accountable. as for printed media, that doesn't apply.

lynn

You just gave me an idea. If providing unequal access to candidates could be considered unbalanced compensation -- and this would violate the FEC rules -- does this mean a complaint filed with the FCC about these outlets willingly using their broadcast powers for illegal purposes would shake some trees?

FM radio stations are not even allowed to renew their broadcast licenses each year if there are outstanding complaints against their licenses. Friend of mine is a former attorney for one of the local FM stations -- he told me of a trend of a small few people that routinely file complaints to "hold up" the stations for a little each year. Kind of funny -- I wonder how THOUSANDS of citizens complaints filed with the FCC against these outlets would go..... :)

THANK YOU FOR SAYING WHAT YOU DID!! :)

I need to look into this...

klamath
10-11-2007, 08:02 PM
In 2017 when it is settled and you can disclose what you found out in "discovery" let us know. Lawsuits don't get resolved over night unless there is a sumary judgement against you. They take years!

RonPaulCentral
10-11-2007, 08:12 PM
In 2017 when it is settled and you can disclose what you found out in "discovery" let us know. Lawsuits don't get resolved over night unless there is a sumary judgement against you. They take years!

Your missing the point -- it is more about the discovery then anything else. Discovery comes first... :) Trust me -- they would NOT be happy about having to disclose their advertising contracts (and how long they have been in place) and disclose productions notes and time scripts for the debates. It would show unfair COMPENSATION of certain candidates.... once you have the information from the discovery process you can then file complaints with the FEC and such. All I want is equal access time for ALL the candidates. And the ones that got screw in the past should get a makeup credit ;)

McDermit
10-11-2007, 08:13 PM
No.

eloquensanity
10-11-2007, 08:20 PM
No. Bad idea.

Sometimes I think some of you are working harder against Ron Paul than for him. JMO

Mortikhi
10-11-2007, 08:23 PM
The best way to get back at these "reporters" is to use their tactics against them. Meet them at their house with cameras running and blind side them with questions.

klamath
10-11-2007, 08:40 PM
Your missing the point -- it is more about the discovery then anything else. Discovery comes first... :) Trust me -- they would NOT be happy about having to disclose their advertising contracts (and how long they have been in place) and disclose productions notes and time scripts for the debates. It would show unfair COMPENSATION of certain candidates.... once you have the information from the discovery process you can then file complaints with the FEC and such. All I want is equal access time for ALL the candidates. And the ones that got screw in the past should get a makeup credit ;)

When the media conglomerates unleast 50 high priced lawyers it will be years before you even get to discovery. I fully understand you frustration but spend the money in NH!

mavtek
10-11-2007, 08:53 PM
I had to say yes, while I understand these are private organizations they should not be allowed to cover public election debates completely unfairly. I can see the issue in news coverage, or other editorials, but many of these debates are not only partially funded publicly they are also held many times on public property.

That's not democratic, at the very least it's fraud.

steph3n
10-11-2007, 08:55 PM
has anyone thought that maybe Dr Paul's popularity really is that low becuase he really is UNKNOWN?
I know it hasn't crossed many minds, but it is very likely true :)

eloquensanity
10-11-2007, 09:00 PM
BINGO.

More time spent promoting him and less complaining about unfainess in the media would serve the campaign better.

FreedomLover
10-11-2007, 09:03 PM
Can someone move this to "hot topics" please?

DeadheadForPaul
10-11-2007, 09:04 PM
OH Jesus Christ

So you want to force private corporations to cover something that they do not find profitable? Who are you? A socialist/fascist?

rp4prez
10-11-2007, 09:05 PM
i'd rather see you give me $2300 of the 25k so i can give to the campaign and then you can give 9 others money to give to the campaign! :)

RonPaulCentral
10-11-2007, 09:08 PM
OH Jesus Christ

So you want to force private corporations to cover something that they do not find profitable? Who are you? A socialist/fascist?

No but since public money is used and frequently held in public venues with a CO-SPONSORSHIP (Ie: private interest public funds) WE as providers of those funds should receive COMPLETE information. We are NOT getting complete information - it is not a DEBATE - it is a fricking SHOW.

If certain candidates are receiving an unfair advantage and public funds are used,do you feel this should be allowed? Think about it.

peacemonger
10-11-2007, 09:12 PM
If the media says we are losing, we just have make sure we win. If we sue them, we are just going to look like sore losers. It would make us look weak and defeated. Nobody likes a sore loser.

mdh
10-11-2007, 09:24 PM
Man, if I had $25,000 I can think of a ton of things that could be done to ensure victory for Dr. Paul. Suing the media is just a distraction from what should be our real goal here, which is winning this election. Furthermore, it's a free market - don't sue the MSM, invest the $25,000 in competing with them. www.ronpaulradio.com is doing this - competing fairly - and believe me, we have not invested $25,000! If we had that kind of capital, we could rock their world in a truly free market!

Chrispy
10-11-2007, 09:25 PM
Lets not forget the message of Ron Paul. Sure the "MSM" is biased, they have treated many of the candidates "unfairly" by giving them less time and coverage in the news. The MSM believe it or not reserves the 1st amendment also. They can report on whatever they feel like reporting on.

From a free market point of view the media has one goal... making money. They will cater to any group that will get them viewer ship and advertising moneys. I think that our goal should be making reporting on RP profitable or making them recognize that it is profitable. With the recent successes in fund raising we have recieved at leased a 3 fold increase in coverage.

What we have seen is Ron Paul headlines go from "long-shot" to "Surprise" and "Dark horse". They are beginning to see that this message of freedom and the underdog is popular and profitable. Instead of focusing our efforts on the negative, we need to get out there and show the media that we are a force to be reckoned with. We knew this would be an uphill battle, and we're now seeing the playing field slowly leveling out. Besides when we win (and we will) it will be all the sweeter.

Tidewise
10-11-2007, 11:18 PM
As an attorney I think this is a terrible idea. That money could be put to such better use. Form a PAC and run some ads on television in New Hampshire or Iowa. Or use it to challenge the unconstitutional (read Scalia and Thomas dissents) McCain Feingold campaign laws that are preventing people like you from giving that $25K to Ron Paul. Suing The Man with the microphone and cameras will turn out badly.

Duckman
10-11-2007, 11:40 PM
Yeah, I don't think this can possibly make us look good, and it will detract from other efforts.

jjschless
10-11-2007, 11:40 PM
RonPaulCentral I like your tenacity and sense of justice but I don't think a court case would get finished until after the general election. Also the news outlets have the freedom of speech and can use it to lie and ignore if they so choose. As far as libel, Dr. Paul or an agreed upon agent would have to pursue that.

Don't focus too much on the media outlets. By doing so you play into their game of distraction and wasted time. I would instead be resourceful and look for other ways to spread the message of Dr. Paul.


There will be no greater victory for us and embarrassment for the Media than to get Ron Paul into the White House. After a year and a half of ignoring and marginalizing Paul a victory would be the last straw that broke the MSM back. It is at that point that we can point to them and decry them as a problem, call for an overall boycott and let the free market forces bring them to their knees. This will be much easier and much quicker and lead to a better result for the sake of our Republic.

Patience will pay off.

american.swan
10-12-2007, 12:17 AM
I agree in principle but also I think after the election would be better. Also I don't think you'll find a whole lot in the conspiracy department in relation to NEWS. You might find something in the debate organization themselves.

Anyways, good luck.



This message is intended to test the waters to see if there is initial support for something I am highly considering.

-------

It is now beyond obvious that the parties involved in producing and broadcasting the Republican debates have an agenda. I am thinking about filing a lawsuit against the involved parties so that I can use subpoena power to obtain notes,
internal memos, emails and contract documentation to establish what parties exactly are responsible. Once you find out who is directly responsible then you will find out what they are receiving or giving and to whom to get it done.

I think between the various parties we will find a stinking mess.

I talked to my attorney today about this and we agreed -- he said that "discovery" can certainly be used to bring out a lot of "dirty laundry" and that in this case if enough people are involved they would probably quickly make concessions to "sweep it away"

So here is a very basic outline of what I am thinking.

#1: I will seed the lawsuit with $25,000 of my own money.

#2: I ask a minimum of 1000 supporters to become either co-plaintiffs or supporters of the lawsuit to the tune of $100 each. (More would just pack more initial punch)

#3: Each supporter pledges to provide $100 more for the next 4 months resulting in a total provided of $500

This would provide $525,000 for a significant discovery which based on a VERY simple lawsuit with just a few complaints can keep it inexpensive and allow us to use subpoena powers to expose just what is going on. This wouldn’t be the government but private companies. Employees are not usually good at being coordinated to create "mass deceptions" and there is frequently someone in the inside that will leak things (like missing memos) because they really believe in what you are doing or just hate their job.

The backdoor deals and what I think would ultimately perhaps expose some conspiracy issues would embarrass a lot of people. I kind of wonder how certain advertising commitments from certain candidates compare to airtime.

In addition if it can be show that the news media outlets made "unfair" deals their provided assistance could possible be considered "in kind" financial support and a huge violation of FEC rules.

So what do you think folks you want to help me work towards finding out just who is behind this nonsense?

Brett

PS: I know the thought will come up -- any monies left would be returned to the donating parties evenly.

Bradley in DC
10-12-2007, 06:54 AM
We're fighting for their right NOT to be intimidated by government. Stop this nonsense.

No one said life was fair. Promoting the idea that lobbying to government for special treatment only exacerbates the problem.

LBT
10-12-2007, 07:22 AM
Good luck in developing this idea RonPaulCentral!

I'm with the others to some degree regarding using the government to enforce regulations on a private organization, but I'm all for private citizens or organizations exposing private organizations when they lie, produce a bad products etc.

One option might be to sponsor a webmaster and a few researchers to put together a website that documents all the media bias. Put out videos, digg the evidence etc. WOuld generate quite a lot of traffic I'd imagine and should be able to fund itself with donations.

It might even attract a few whisteblowers.

Anyway, whatever you come up with, good luck. It's good to have people who are willing to invest their time and money into ideas that can help.