It looks like the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is learning a lesson about when to choose battles. For example, when you’re going to lob potentially criminal allegations at the seventh richest person in the United States, make sure you have your facts straight first.
The DCCC recently put out a statement insinuating that billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson “personally approved” of prostitution at his Macau casino, and asked, “What will Speaker Boehner, Leader Cantor, and House Republicans do with their Chinese prostitution money?”
The statement made it seem like the allegations were confirmed by the Associated Press, when in fact the news organization was just reporting on a lawsuit filed by a fired Adelson employee. Adelson has disputed the charges, and now his attorneys are threatening the DCCC with a defamation suit, according to The Hill:
“We just received and are reviewing Mr. Adelson’s attorney’s letter,” DCCC spokesman Jesse Ferguson said in an email. Ferguson did not respond to a follow-up inquiry.
In late June, the DCCC sent out a release alleging that prostitution money tied to Adelson helped fund the campaigns of Reps. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) and Jim Renacci (R-Ohio), as well as other GOP incumbents. …
“Immediately retract and apologize for defamatory statements falsely accusing Mr. Adelson of encouraging and profiting from prostitution, maliciously branding Mr. Adelson as a pimp who has given ‘Chinese prostitution money’ to your political opponents,” the letter from Adelson’s attorney, first obtained by the Las Vegas Sun, reads in part. “These false allegations constitute libel per se entitling Mr. Adelson to compensatory and punitive damages.”
I’m not usually a fan of libel suits, and there would be a high threshold to meet here as Adelson is a public figure. He might have a solid case for “actual malice” — that the statement was knowingly false and published with the intent to harm — particularly because the lightest bit of fact-checking by PolitiFact earned the DCCC a “pants on fire” label on a similar subsequent statement:
As our Ohio colleagues point out, the allegation that Adelson allowed prostitution at the Macau comes from a fired employee. The DCCC takes that claim and says money from prostitution was included in Adelson’s campaign contributions to GOP congressional incumbents — including Duffy.
There’s no evidence that Duffy received contributions from Adelson, and he has no control over contributions to groups that support him.
“The claim that Adelson’s donations to these other groups amount to ‘Chinese prostitution money’ is dubious enough that inserting the word ‘allegedly’ can’t save it,” PolitiFact Ohio wrote in its assessment.
That holds no matter what name is inserted into the cut-and-paste news release.
You can repeat a claim, but the smell of smoke remains the same. Pants on Fire.
At the very least, Adelson could cause some serious headaches for the DCCC. But would he really want to go through with the suit and open himself up to a discovery process by a group that has its claws out for him?
If you know Sheldon Adelson, he's as serious about this as a heart attack, and he's got the money to take on the DCCC. The real question is not whether Adelson wants the fight but does the DCCC? Go Sheldon!
Check on the definition of "public figure" — does merely donating to a political campaign make one a public figure? Does being rich? And if so, is there a threshold or is the senior citizen who lived a modest frugal life and who now donates $5 to whomever instantly become a public figure? n nThe "public figure" exemption is based on the presumption that the individual is personally able to credibly refute the libel because he/she/it has access to the media that others don't — that the person has an inherent credibility and that the media is professionally obligated to cover what he/she/it says — not as rebuttal to the libel, but anything the person says. n nWhen was the last time that Adelson either (a) had something appear in the media under his name (regardless if he or his staff wrote it), (b) was interviewed or covered in the media (other than in response to criticism) — kinda like Bill Gates talking about the Gates Foundation — I have never seen anything about Adelson, and/or (c) when was the last time Adelson directly attempted to influence policy, such as testifying before Congress or a state legislature relative to something? n nIf he is doing none of this, if he is just really rich and hence able to donate a greater sum (but smaller percentage of net worth) than others to assorted candidates, then I am not so sure he is a public figure. And remember too that this is unique to American libel law — Ann Coulter makes the point that she would routinely win suits in Britain that she doesn't even bother to bring here. n nThe other question to ask is what his congregation (and his Rabbi) thought about the initial allegations. He may bring a lawsuit knowing he has no chance of winning merely to defend his character and that of his family in this venue. This is the situation where people become really dangerous in that they honestly don't care how much the litigation costs nor how slim a chance of winning they have — it isn't about money anymore and hence they won't settle or mediate ANYTHING. The DCCC may well have shot at the wrong person, someone both able and willing to shoot back…
Unfortunately because he's been in the news as a campaign contributor and superpac contributor the courts will hold that he is a public fugure and place a higher burden on him should he bring a libel suit. That's just a fact–in the Sullivan v New York Times case the Supreme Court under Earl Warren looked to protect defendants in libel and slander suits and it's been the liberals who have benefited from the ruling ever since. In this suit, should it be brought, all the DCCC will have to show is that the accusation was made in the media and they're immune. It's disgusting and the DCCC is a disreputable group if there ever was one, but as their propagandist Cronkite used to say, that's the way it is!
It's been a long time since torts class, but doesn't NYT v. Sullivan permit the requirement of actual malice can be satisfied by less than actual knowlege of the falsehood?
In the mean time, "comedian" Sarah Silverman has publicly offered sexual favors to Adelson if he switches his donations to the Democrats. Isn't that solicitating for prostitution? Has the DCCC or the NJDC condemned Silverman's offer? And have they said they would reject Adelson's donation if she were successful in, er, soliciting it?
She certainly qualifies as a political hooker!
Okay, Silverman is a comic who earns a living telling sex jokes. She's been out of the news for awhile and probably wanted some free publicity. No one will take her seriously. n nAdelson probably knows what skeletons he has in the closet, and if he's as smart as he is rich, he has nothing to worry about. n nThe Democrats have been flirting with slander and libel for some time now, maybe Adelson can give 'em a good spanking to learn 'em some manners.
This is one case where the term "sue the bastards!" takes on new – and delightful – meaning.
One way or another this story is guaranteed to have a happy ending.
If you are guilty of the crimes committed by people who give you money, then Obama probably belongs in jail, as does Romney.
Isn't Alan Dershowitz one of the folk who immediately defended Adelson — this is interesting because of a suit he once brought on behalf of Boston radio talkshow and newspaper columnist Howie Carr's *wife* (a private figure), in attacking Carr, someone said something about his wife and technically *she* sued. Now if you are saying that a hotel has prostitution, that not only is defaming Adelson but a bunch of other folk, including the manager of the hotel, etc. People who are not public figures in any context — and they could sue. Sure it is with Adelson's money, but technically they still are private figures. n nSeriously. Name the hotel manager in the hotel where this prostitution was alleged to have happened. Enough said?