Complaint filed with FEC over Betray Us ad

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

Guess what I did at lunch? That's right, I petitioned my government for redress of grievances, specifically illegal political advertising practices by the New York Times and MoveOn.org. We are all well aware of the sorry political advertisement calling the General a traitor.   

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

be·tray
to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.

Good old Benedict Petraeus, well MoveOn could hardly be expected to rise from it's wallow in the fever swamps anyhow, right? So in my first act of political crankitude I filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission regarding the discount MoveOn received. Ya' see in order to be fair newspapers and TV aren't allowed to discount political or advocacy ads so they cannot favor one side, well Hmmmmmm. Here is my complaint.

Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20463

Dear Folks,

Sept. 10, 2007 the political advocacy group MoveOn.org ran an ad in the NY Times with the headline, Gen. Petraeus or Gen. Betray Us.

This ad  also says "Cooking the books for the White House" making it political communications and subject to FEC regulations. It has been reported that MoveOn paid $65,000 for the ad by

ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=3581727&page=1

and the NY Post
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm.

The rate card price of such an ad on the NY Times political advocacy rate card is $181,692.

I sold political advertising for Capital Newspapers in Madison, WI during the 2006 elections. We were informed that there could be absolutely no discounts to the rate card prices for political or advocacy advertising based on federal law. The reason was self-evidently to stop the paper from favoring one viewpoint over another. It seems evident that if the reports are true, the NY Times has favored MoveOn by offering a huge discount to them for political advocacy advertising.

I request an investigation to determine if the law has been broken by the NY Times and/or MoveOn.org.

Complainant:

James Hanson
XXXXXXXXXXXX
Madison, WI 53703
XXXXXXXXXXXX
jimbo AT unclejimbo.com

Respondents:
MoveOn.org
New York Times

Cordially,
Jim

There may be some loophole that MoveON and the NYT slithered through that allows this, but it sure looks dirty to me. We had a sit down with a lawyer prior to the 2006 election specifically telling us that under no circumstances could we ever discount political or advocacy rates, it was illegal and could destroy the rep of the paper. Well for the NYT their rep is not a problem, but I hope they did break the law. It would front them out as the house organ for the American left and the Democratic party. The Dems don't have to do the heavy sliming, a media/Soros/nutroots coalition will act like swine on their behalf.

Pay attention America, these people wish to rule you.

My attention was brought to this by Bob Owens at the Confederate Yankee who has been knocking all kinds of good stories out lately. Charles Hurt of the NY Post put a big hurt on the Times today.

Update: NYTimes excuses.  And a response...

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/21576413

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Complaint filed with FEC over Betray Us ad:

» Blackfives Uncle Jimbo Files FEC Complaint Against the NYT from Pal2pal
By now, everyone has heard about the despicable ad run in the NYT trashing General Petraeus as General Betray Us. What you might not have heard, if you dont read Confederate Yankee, is that MoveOn.org received a huge discount on th... [Read More]

Comments

[warvet48]

Beautiful, Uncle J, just beautiful!!!!

[Soldier's Mom]

thanks Uncle Jim! You would love the political cartoon in the Bryan-College Station Eagle today. It is a drawing of General Petraeus and the comment is:

"Intolerance and Hate are part of their belief system.....

But I'm not here to talk about MoveOn.org"

[SlimGuy]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/09/more-on-that-mo.html

Mathis says the newspaper tries "to keep our advertising columns as open as possible" and "there are many instances when we've published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance that we take on our own editorial pages." As an example of how the Times is open to all points of view in advertisers, Mathis points out that on September 11, 2007, "we published a full-page advertisement from Freedom'sWatch.org, an organization whose view is opposite of MoveOn.org."

Freedom's Watch spokesman Matt David, however tells me the group was charged "significantly more" than MoveOn.org for its ad. The organization says it plans to run a response to the MoveOn.org NYT ad in the Times, "and we plan to demand the same ad rate they paid," David says.

[SlimGuy]

Seems like that totally could be considered "favorable" bias like your letter points out.

You might get in touch with Matt David to compare notes.

[Old Tanker]

Hehe, go git'em Uncle Jimbo!!!!!!!

[Gryph]

Don't overlook the possibility that Move-On simply negotiated a better rate than Freedom-watch, it is a competitive business. And did Freedom-watch place their ad directly with the newspaper or did it use an advertising agency? Generally direct is more expensive as an agency can leverage on pre-existing agreements. Also, I would think that it would be more expensive in general to run an ad on 9-11 than on the 10th. The rate card would be higher.

I'm not defending the ad itself BTW, I found it to be immoral and disgusting.

[Just_A_Grunt]

Jimbo, I understand Move America Forward also put a full page ad in the NYTimes to run on the same day. Of course they didn't get nowhere near the sweetheart deal moveon did and I don't think they got much to say as far as where it would be placed.

[Caper2]

Gryph:

With the NYT track record, if you believe that. I got this lovely bridge to sell, hardly used at all.

El Coqui

Secretly admiring Gryph's child like innocense.

[Deb]

Jimbo, I copied my Dad on this (he's an attorney, retired) and he says you should copy the WSJ, Fox, pretty much everyone. He said this needs much wider dissemination so that the NYTimes can't kill it or try any prevent-defense by pretending it was an oversight and pretending to demand the rest of the money.

So get this out there if you haven't already!!! People need to know. Or do we really want anyone to take the Times seriously (even though no one reads it, the MSM uses it as their key source) during the '08 election?

I sure don't. Let's expose their bias for once and for all (to the last five people who are still in denial anyway) ;)

[Soldier's Mom]

Deb:

Fox is on it already. Here is a copy of an article that I got off of Foxnews.com:

TIMES GIVES LEFTIES A HEFTY DISCOUNT FOR 'BETRAY US' AD

By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief

September 13, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - The New York Times dramatically slashed its normal rates for a full-page advertisement for MoveOn.org's ad questioning the integrity of Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Headlined "Cooking the Books for the White House," the ad which ran in Monday's Times says Petraeus is "a military man constantly at war with the facts" and concluded - even before he testified before Congress - that "General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."

According to Abbe Serphos, director of public relations for the Times, "the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692."

A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed to The Post that the liberal activist group had paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.

A Post reporter who called the Times advertising department yesterday without identifying himself was quoted a price of $167,000 for a full-page black-and-white ad on a Monday.

Serphos declined to confirm the price and refused to offer any inkling for why the paper would give MoveOn.org such a discounted price.

Citing the shared liberal bent of the group and the Times, one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the "family discount."

"I'm surprised they had to pay anything at all for the ad," the GOP staffer said. "They could have just asked the editorial page to run it and it wouldn't have cost them a cent."

churt@nypost.com

[Blackfive]

Hey man, nice shot.

[Miss Ladybug]

Other outlets are reporting the deep discount MoveOn got, but I've not seen anytihng but Jimbo's post here inquiring as to violations of election laws... THAT is what needs to be brought up to a wider audience...

[ed]

How is that you feel free to cite MSM sources when they support your argument (ABC News in this example), but denigrate MSM overall?

Either they are biased or not. Which is it? Or perhaps you don't really believe your own arguments about the liberal bias of MSM after all.

And you surely put no stock in a spokesman for such a lying bunch of traitors as Moveon.org, do you? The spokesman can't be a credible source of information about the ad cost, as they lie about everything, right?

And I think Moveon.org is just as hateful and as flaky as a Michael Savage on the right.

The post is just a suggestion to be more consistent in constructing your argument. Using sources you give no credence to makes you look foolish.

[Uncle Jimbo]

Ed,

Why can't I have it both ways? I doubt the MSM as institutions, and therefore most of their reporting is suspect. But even a blind squirrel finds a nut and if they reporting is true the Times owes an answer. If the tip for that came for ABC, then good on 'em, for once.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Ann E.]

OK!!!! You guys are just too good!
Way To Go!

[Karl B]

Just say this over at Patdollard.com - A commenter DAN2 who I believe runs http://iraqsinconvenienttruth.com/ has made this site http://davidbetrayus.com/

[Karl B]

err- saw

[eaglesdontflock]

Michael Geer's Letter to the Editor in The American Thinker examines the alliance between Communism, the American
Far Left, and Islamo-Facism. He makes a reasonable and disturbing argument that Communism knew it would fail in a military struggle with us, so it cultivated other methods, subversive alliances, fanning the flames of Muslim discontent, feeding hate America worldwide. It's interesting that Putin disbanded his government. From his letter:

"Early Communists correctly analyzed that they would never be able to produce victory over the West through force of arms. They deduced that in order to destroy us, they would have to attack like shadows. They would have to devise Other Means, Other War Fronts, Asymetric Struggles, Other Strategies and Other Tactics. In other words, redefine the field of battle. And that their war would be longer than mere generations because their war, the real war would be aimed at fundamentally turning us upside down inside and backwards until we turned on each other. . .

This war is everywhere and in everything, like toxic clouds from Chernobyl. And you can see the fetid seeds of communism in every utterance of jihadists after you know his leaders were educated at the Sorbonne. Then we accurately analyze where the Left in this country gets its heat and light and support. From a multi-generational worldwide jihad that left its searing mark this day on our Nation. The real jihadist is not limited in scope to Islam. The real jihadist is the infectious disease carrier of shadows who may not even know whom he serves as he tears at our national foundations, mocks our brilliant military, sneers at the fundamentals of our nation and feasts on the idea of our defeat. "

[William Teach]

Way to go, Jimbo! I was writing something similar this morning, in terms of Move On PAC and Move On Civic Action sharing the same website, in which there is advocacy for a particular political party, which would be a big no no for a 401c4 such as Move On Civic. I wonder if you could link the website in to your complaint? Mine is going out Friday or Monday, just have to get it notarized.

Again, good deal! Hope it goes somewhere. High time liberals were called to account for breaking the law, whether we like the law or not.

[Miss Ladybug]

Ya know, as for that "betrayus" website, I'd think that Gen. Petraeus would have grounds for a libel suit (and the ad by MoveOn, as well). He can't tell disrespectful members of Congress where to stick it, but MoveOn and a private individual don't fall into those categories that mean he can't say anything...

[Cassandra]

Jimbo darlin'

This is almost enough to bribe me into forgiving you for that "chicken on a beachball" crack :p

You are a lovely man...

[JoeS]

Right On!! The NYTimes will never claim to be a newspaper again. The blog revolution is going to educate our nation.

Thanks Jimbo and B5

[RT]

jimbo, you are the wind beneath my wings!

[M. Simon]

Madison? Nice place to visit. But the politics. I suppose being near Althouse is a consolation.

Me? Just a little ways South in Rockford. In "All Our Governors Are Crooks" Illinois.

[Ojoe]

"Pay attention America, these people wish to rule you."

Exactly. Well put. Thank you Uncle Jimbo.

[edddie]

Once again, Jimbeaux proves he is as ignorant as the day is long.

[Soldier's Mom]

M. Simon -- at least Madison has some decent bars and eateries!

And edddie -- although I realize that a person would have to have the ability to read to look up the definition of ignorant, what Jim says is founded in fact, law and US Code -- when you voice opinions such as your last post -- what do you base them on -- facts? things you can verify? Or is it just not liking what he says when he's right and you aren't? Just thought I would ask. And as for being ignorant, having worked for and with the Federal Government for all of my adult life, Jim can't hold a candle to anyone we have elected in the last 100 years! Speaking of which, do you vote or are you one of those people who think they don't have to because they can sit home and say stupid things without proposing a solution or trying to do something about a situation? Inquiring minds want to know.

[blutscheiss5000]

This is long-winged but true: None of you should've worried about something as common as an ad in the New York Times "attacking" GEN Patraeus, as if a four-star general--or any of you, for that matter--should be bothered by an ad from MoveOndotorg.

For those of you who aren't in the publishing business (and that looks like 99% of the writers here), an ad department discounts ads ALL the time, depending on the time of the month, deadlines, etc. Why? Because even half-price is still money and there's almost always extra space to sell. Ads can be b/w, color, etc, and that can be a huge factor. Your intrepid investigative jernnulist at the NY Post or wherever, the one who "broke" the story to you, never mentioned anything about the b/w or color angle, etc. He called up the NYT and got the "official" rate. The ongoing rate is NEGOTIABLE. Ever heard of that word? Furthermore, sometimes it doesn't take a whole hell of a lot of negotiating. So, do the math sometime and you'll maybe understand. It's called "business."

If any of you had an education--or used what you have--this sort of ad and its contents wouldn't bother you and you'd stay focussed on the real enemy. Grow up. No wonder you have an idiot for a president.

[Uncle Jimbo]

You are awful dense yourself to be caling anyone else out Bloodshite,

If you had actually read the piece you would know that I sold newspaper advertising and know exactly how the game is played, and it looks like the Times cheated.

And whether or not we have an idiot for a President we certainly have one for a commenter.

Cordially,

Uncle J

[Caper2]

Right on, Jimbo.

Day by Day had your back.

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2007/09/14/#a004290

El Coqui

[eaglesdontflock]

blutschiess5000..didya hafta change your id? You are indeed full of scheiss. Seems someone with your arrogance would use a spell check. Smart asses should do that before they call others dumb.

As for intellectual content, you obviously have no "blut" getting to your brain.

[Schratboy]

Dude, you ROCK!

[Schratboy]

Soldier's mom....a pedigree if ever there was one, doesn't give you the right to disparage the august crowd of commentators on this forum. Since you waved your haughty nose, spouting off all your advertising maven insights to the dullards among us, may I point out that no one asked your opinion? Moreover, your name calling more than exposed your motives as nothing more than a blithering impeachment monkey of the extreme liberal variety. And on that account, there is no discounting!

[Soldier's Mom]

Uh -- wait a minute Schratboy -- "advertising maven insights"? Where the hell did that come from -- I have NEVER had anything to do with advertising -- have worked for the Department of Defense my entire adult life. As for "soldier's Mom" being a pedigree -- I am me because of me but I am damn proud to be the mother of 4 outstanding young men -- one of whom happens to be a special forces soldier. And name calling -- what name did I call whom? I may have made comments as to what I thought about someone but I didn't call anyone a name. and I'm not blithering, I'm not a monkey and I never said a damn word above or anywhere else that I know of about impeachment. I don't mind if you call me names and say what you want about me -- that's your right, but at least get your damned facts straight. and on a final note -- I don't have a haughty nose -- I'm not any better than anyone on here -- but I'm not any worse either. I'm just a proud American who wants the civilians to get out of this and let the military do what they are trainied to do and then get out of there.