« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
MI GOP Official Sues News Website Over 'Lose Your Home Lose Your Vote' Story
A Republican official in Michigan has filed a defamation suit against an independent news site, over a story in which he is quoted as stating his party plans to challenge voters whose names and addresses appear on foreclosure lists.
"We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses," James Carabelli, the chairman of the Macomb County Republican Party is quoted as saying in the Michigan Messenger in an article published September 10.
Just a few days after the article was published, Carabelli back-tracked on his statement, telling the Macomb Daily that the party has "no plans to do anything." Later, he issued a full-throated denial, calling the original article "not true."
The Michigan Messenger is an independent news site that is part of the Center for Independent Media (CIM).
CIM president and CEO David Bennahum told TPMmuckraker this morning that they had not yet received a copy of the suit, but said that CIM stands by the story and the reporter.
"We've stood by this story since day one and we continue to stand by it," he said. "I think this is a use of defamation to stifle free speech, and it ain't gonna work. . . Just because the truth is inconvenient you can't sue it away."
Wow, talk about an intimidation tactic. Suing a blog for quoting you.
I'm not going to defend these guys too vigorously here, because I don't know their reputation or how strenuously they fact check their stuff, but this story has been percolating for awhile now. And not just in the state of Michigan.
If this guy was misquoted, then the MM needs to tighten their standards. But hopefully, they have their ducks in a row and are able to prove it, because this sounds like a clear-cut case of journalistic intimidation.
Sounds like a job for the ACLU.
October 3, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is great. I'm sure GOP lawyers are rushing to head this off. The GOP will not allow themselves to be subject to discovery rules in such a case.
October 3, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very good point. Let's see how long it takes before Mr. Carabelli suddenly retracts his suit when he considers what the discovery process would entail.
October 3, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe an Anti-SLAPP counterclaim can block the MI GOP from voluntary dismissal. Need to get an appropriately formed answer in pronto.
October 3, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
These Republicans kill me! They never show any real passion or concern for anything, until someone calls them out on their misdeeds, then they get twisted in knots, trying to lie their way out of them. And when will they start coming up with their own ideas, instead of just stilling them from Democrats? Anybody else think that logo looks real familiar?
October 3, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's important that we get all those frivolous class-action asbestos suits out of the courts to make way for very serious cases, like this one.
October 3, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
This has all the legs of an earthworm. You can't sue someone for defamation when they're quoting your own public statement. It doesn't even matter whether the reporter got the story quotation right or wrong... it's not defamation. If "getting it dead wrong" were defamatory, then Rush and Bill O. would have been off the air long ago. This suit is just an intentional misuse of the courts to settle a grudge, now that McCain has lost in Michigan.
October 3, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can if the public statement doesn't exist, which I think is the theory. Even then, in addition to discovery, you have (1) the actual malice standard (newsworthy topic, probable limited purpose public figure at a minimum) and (2) a clear and convincing evidence burden. Throw the discovery in on this, as others have noted--third-party subpoenas gone wild--and the words "short bus" leap to mind.
October 3, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are the rules for someone who moves, for whatever reason, between the close of registration and the election? I always assumed if there was not sufficient time to reregister you simply voted at your old address. There have to be thousands of people in this situation every election.
October 3, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look forward to the discovery on this case.. opening up the MI GOP files on vote caging plans...and maybe broadening that to ALL GOP files on vote suppression. The Obama team filed suit in MI as soon as the original story broke...maybe this counter is an attempt to deflect THAT discovery... At any rate, anyone in MI who is unfortunately in forclosure, check your voter registration is current and correct, be prepared to prove it at the polls or vote early.
October 3, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is simply an attempt to frighten bloggers off the air. This asshole probably thinks the Independent media don't have the money to fight on this.
The law has been clear on libel of a public figure (which all politicians are) since New York Times v. Sullivan. We apply an "actual malice" standard which means the plaintiff politician has to prove that the statement was false and defamatory, and that it was written "with actual malice" --- he has to prove ACTUAL INTENT to defame.
Merely showing that the statement was false and that the reporter should have known it was false is NOT enough. He has to show the reporter had ACTUAL knowledge of the falsity or intended to defame.
Not a chance in hell this stands up. It's purely an attempt to silence the media in violation of the 1st Amendment!
October 3, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't this mean that the Obama campaign now has legal prescident to sue Fox News (both localaffiliates and the parent network) for libel when they reported Obama attended a Madrasah?
October 3, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What if a benefactor comes in and sponsors a Michigan Messenger countersuit? Would there be grounds for such a countersuit? Would the countersuit go away if the GOP lawyers head off the official lawsuit? In other words, does the original suit give an opportunity to leverage discovery through a countersuit, even if the original lawsuit is dropped?
October 3, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Under NY Times v. Sullivan, it should be very difficult to sue for reporting a statement by a political figure. In order to win, the plaintiff would have to show not only that the statement was false, but that it was published "maliciously," meaning that the the publisher had to KNOW that the statement was false, or act with "reckless disregard" for whether it was false.
Those are tough standards to meet.
Bottom line is that there is no way the plaintiff expects to win. This is purely harrassment and intimidation.
October 3, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note that they didn't make this move until after McCain effectively conceded Michigan.
October 3, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's hear some discussion about Anti-Slapp lawsuit by the blog against the GOP. The key problem is the ability fo the original report to adjust the GOP's plan. Rather than denying the report, the GOP would have us believe they would no longer do what was claimed. This is hardly a basis for a defamation suit, but an affirmation of the Founder's goal of having the media act as a check on political power.
There are several problems with this defamation suit. First, Obama essentially asserted the same, but attracted no counter-suit.
Second, this is an issue of public interest. The plaintiff in this suit are public figures. The standard is actual malice, meaning the plaintiff must prove the statement is false; and recklessly made without regard to the truth. This means the plaintiffs must have a recording showing the transcription is false. Even if there is no transcript, the fact that the GOP did not immediately deny the statement -- and only modified (statement 2, below) -- tends to lead in the favor of the blog-defendant.
Third, the original reaction was not a denial, but an adjustment. This tends to support the assertion that the original news report was valid. Saying, "no comment" in no way adequately communicates that the blog got it wrong. The subsequent statement is not consistent with the original reaction; and the defamation suit appears inconsistent with the original reaction.
Let's break down the timeline:
October 3, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with what sdslaw and others posted:
This opens up not just the MI GOP to discovery, but other GOP "ops" in MI to it. Knowning the GOP, they probably are trying to keep their own hands "clean" on the issue, and in turn are creating layered organizations to do it.
The Michigan Messenger and Center for Independent Media actually don't have to run up a massive tab on this initially. Instead, they can turn this into a monsterous discovery battle. Aim it not just at the MI GOP HQ, but also the RNC, elements of the DOJ (the Voting Rights Section), and every GOP Op Unit they can identify that may have stretched out to MI.
Worse still, with the changes in the laws in the past couple of years, the burned of Document/Data Preservation is *massive*. Once a lawsuit is filed, the MI GOP is required to preserve all documents that may be relevant to the case, and once SDT's are sent out to third parties, they'll be under obligations as well.
To paraphrase Christopher Walken, the MI GOP didn't think this through.
John
October 3, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
lindita:
What are the rules for someone who moves, for whatever reason, between the close of registration and the election? I always assumed if there was not sufficient time to reregister you simply voted at your old address. There have to be thousands of people in this situation every election.
From what I've heard, that is the case, but I really don't know. But what I understand of the "foreclosure tactic" is that they will use the foreclosure lists to try and "cage" addresses (in presumptive Democratic areas) to send letters to, and if the letters come back undeliverable, they will challenge the voter registration. Don't know if that's what was planned in Michigan, but that has bean a tactic elsewhere, and some states may take such a returned letter as sufficient cause to take a name off the rolls. You might be able to challenge the removal at the polling station, and get a provisional ballot, but it does have a discouraging effect....
Cheers,
October 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't this lawsuit qualify as "frivolous"? And won't he need one of the Republican-despised "trial lawyers" to pursue his case? What a bunch of clowns.
October 3, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly what MI state law says.
October 3, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The original article says the statement was made in a telephone interview. Don't journos usually record those, if only so they can transcribe quotes verbatim after the fact? Seems to me the GOP is betting the farm on the assumption that the reporter wasn't recording. Which I hope, hope, hope! she was.
I'm liking the discovery angle, too, though... a lot. It'll be interesting to see if the party suddenly tacks back away from the current game plan for implausible "reasons"...
October 3, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lindita,
I think the proper move is to register at the new address prior to the deadline, but that doesn't answer what to do if the move is sudden, or if you become homeless between the two dates, but these numbers are small and a voter can find the solution by consulting the registrar, who must have a solution.
The real point here is that there are many examples of organized efforts by "conservatives" to deprive groups citizens from exercising their right to vote. I can't think of a single case where "liberals" did the same. Since the granting of women's suffrage and the civil rights movement, its become unfashionable to openly deprive anyone (except immigrants) of their vote, so now the conservative mantra is "voter fraud". But even the Supreme Court, which deprived Floridians of their votes in 2000, admitted, in a recent Ohio case, that there is no evidence of significant voter fraud. Then it went ahead and deprived more voters of their rights by approving a photo I.D requirement anyway, just in case (the election is close again?).
October 4, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink