POLL - Considering lawsuit against news outlets (CNBC, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc)

[RonPaulCentral]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

 

[RonPaulCentral]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Who is they?

The people you want to sue! Don't play their game, change the rules!

 

[Ann Kobialka]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.