Rep. McDermott Bravely Loses Millions for Free Speech
That's what he keeps telling himself anyways . . .
By Kevin Holtsberry Posted in Congress | Culture of Corruption | John Boehner — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Good thing Jim McDermott got Saddam to pay for his trip to Iraq, because it turns out he owes House Minority Leader John Boehner a lot of money:
A federal judge says House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, can collect more than $1 million in his lawsuit against Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington state.
The decision was issued in a decade-long dispute over an illegally taped telephone call. In the 1996 call, Republican leaders discussed an ethics case against then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. A Florida couple recorded the cell phone call on a radio scanner and McDermott leaked the tape to two newspapers.
Boehner sued and a federal court found that McDermott had no right to release the calls. The Supreme Court decided in December not to revisit the case.
McDermott claims that his losing and owing over a million dollars is a good thing:
McDermott called the court fight with Boehner “a long and costly battle,” but said the million-dollar judgment was “a small price to pay in defense of so fundamental a principle, and freedom, as the First Amendment.”
Because of the protracted legal challenge, “the First Amendment is stronger today, and shielded by new case law that will buttress its capacity to protect the publication of truthful information on matters of public importance long into the future,” McDermott said in a statement Tuesday. “ Knowing this, I am proud of my role in defense of the First Amendment.”
Rep. McDermott, however, didn't have much luck rallying free speech defenders to his righteous cause:
McDermott has created a legal defense trust fund to cover expenses related to the lawsuit. A report filed with the House clerk shows the trust fund took in about $56,000 in the final three months of last year, for a full-year total of just over $100,000.
Dan McLaughlin summed this case up well a few years ago:
So, if you are keeping score at home, that would be one House Democrat to zero current Congressional or White House Republicans who have been found by a court of law to have participated in illegal domestic surveillance of political opponents.
Remember this next time the Democrats begin spouting off about the rule of law and the culture of corruption, etc.
« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for Censorship — Comments (5) | Everyone Loses in the Earmark Game — Comments (23) »
Rep. McDermott Bravely Loses Millions for Free Speech 5 Comments (0 topical, 5 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...until he pays up. Hey! He's got a campaign war chest, right?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Depending on Washington's laws on exempted property, yeah, his campaign funds may very well be fair game. I believe that they would be in the state I practice law in.
I'm not sure they can be used to pay this judgment. This would appear to be against Jim McDermott in his capacity as a regular guy. I don't believe this lawsuit was against him in an official capacity or as a U.S. Representative per se. So I would suspect that his campaign cash can only be used to the extent that federal and state law would allow its use for personal purposes. And I don't believe there is any personal use to which you can put campaign funds.
I think the fact that he had to use personal (and not campaign or other official) funds to pay for his legal representation in the case is indicative of whether he will be required to pay the million out of his own pocket.
I don't believe this case had anything to do with the First Amendment. I don't believe that Boehner was arguing that there was any law that prohibited McDermott's action, or that there necessarily should be a law to silence him. What Boehner was saying all along was, at base, that "actions have consequences." Rep. McDermott has all the freedom in the world to say what he wants, but certain things, when said, require you to compensate people whom you have harmed by your speech.
Perhaps I am wrong about the legal positions being taken, but McDermott seems to be trying to turn a costly "fine" for morally questionable conduct into some sort of vindication - as if he set out to make this some test case. Clearly, McDermott was fighting to avoid any liability (which would have indeed been an interesting decision regarding what the Amendment protects).
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk