By FITSNews || For the second time in the 2010 election cycle, a South Carolina circuit court judge has removed a perfectly legal political advertisement from the state’s TV airwaves – a pattern of First Amendment suppression that strikes at the very heart of free speech.
Last month, circuit court Judge J. Mark Hayes II issued a temporary injunction against the airing of a television advertisement that was supporting S.C. Rep. Nikki Haley’s campaign. This month, circuit court judge Knox McMahon pulled the plug on an advertisement critical of Alan Wilson – son of U.S. Congressman Addison Graves “Joe” Wilson.
McMahon’s ruling in particular has sparked outcry. In fact, on Sunday the S.C. Supreme Court issued a temporary stay of McMahon’s order and scheduled an emergency hearing regarding the ad.
Wilson is currently seeking the Republican nomination for S.C. Attorney General. Two weeks ago, he advanced to a runoff election against Columbia attorney Leighton Lord. Throughout the campaign, questions have been raised regarding Wilson’s experience – or lack thereof – which is where the ad at the center of this controversy comes into play.
Here’s the ad:
Similar to the advertisement that was run on behalf of the Haley campaign, this ad clearly fits within the framework of legal, political speech. In fact, McMahon’s ruling temporarily pulling the ad did not dispute its basis in fact, it merely alleged that the S.C. Truth Squad – the group that paid for the ad – did not “properly file” its paperwork with the S.C. State Ethics Commission.
Whatever.
We’ve spoken with several TV executives and they tell us that the justification for that claim is totally bogus.
Also, when McMahon was running for the circuit court position, the notoriously-corrupt judicial merit selection commission originally declared him unqualified for the post. Well, Sen. Jakie Knotts (RINO-Lexington) – a longtime Wilson ally and member of the selection commission – protested the decision and eventually had it overruled.
By Truth June 21, 2010 at 11:58 am
team wilson is running scared. prohibiting free speech= epic fail. all of these claims in the ad are cited and true
By DG June 21, 2010 at 12:04 pm
The issue is that the ad was made by a “shadowy” organization that provided a fake name, P.O. Box and cell phone number from a throw away phone. The law states that people need to be able to contact the people who made the ad to see their donor list and contributors. That didn’t happen here — so its a legal violation.
And why is there no acceptable contact information? Because the ad is connected to the Lord campaign in an attempt to throw people off track in the day before the election. It’s a desperate move from the Lord campaign, which is trailing badly in polls. Shameless. We don’t need that. Alan Wilson has run a positive campaign focused on his prosecution experience — something of which Lord has none.
Give me a break.
By sid June 21, 2010 at 12:04 pm
So, do the TV execs claim the paperwork was properly filed, or are they claiming that, even if the paperwork was filed improperly, the ads should still run?
Also, if the judicial merit selection commission is truly “corrupt,” would that make the initial decision to declare McMahon unqualified a “corrupt” decision?
By AI June 21, 2010 at 12:33 pm
At least Wilson had the stones to put his name on his ad attacking Lord’s lack of prosecutorial experience.
By DG June 21, 2010 at 12:46 pm
BTW, this also has nothing to do with “The First Amendment.” Don’t drink Todd Kincannon’s Kool Aid.
It has to do with violating rules and laws.
Alan Wilson will stand up to that!
The Lord camp should be ashamed — Lord wants to be the state’s chief legal officer, but he condones these kinds of violations? Shameless.
By Truth June 21, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Lord put his name on this ad because he actually paid for this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dp4GqfTqKE
By Cliff Seegars June 21, 2010 at 1:08 pm
The Lord Campaign had nothing to do with this truthful ad; outside parties have been doing attack ads like this for ages. Lord has run his campaign clean and has not said anything about Wilson that hasn’t been factual. Lord has focused on touting his experience and Wilson’s lack thereof. Wilson has done nothing but run on the coattails of his stepfather, just look at his ads. When are South Carolina voters going to stop voting for status quo politicians and pay attention to the things that matter, such as experience? Leighton Lord is the only proven leader in this race and will run the AG’s office just the way he has run his campaign: with integrity and efficiency.
By Whatajoke June 21, 2010 at 1:10 pm
All the info in the ad is totally true. That’s funny that Alan’s trying to get it pulled. Hiding the truth already; not a good sign. What a joke.
By 20gage4life June 21, 2010 at 1:12 pm
This ad is awesome! Not only is it factually true, but finally someone brings out the truth about what an incompetent fool Alan Wilson is. Pulling the ad defies Alan’s “Constitution Tour” premise because he himself is not upholding 1st amendment rights. Wilson is just another good ole boy trying to play politics off his daddy’s coattails.
By JustSickofSC June 21, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Look, Lord on the WIS article says the following
“Lord says his camp had nothing to do with the ad. “Some third party is doing an ad against Alan Wilson, some third party did an ad against me several months ago about the fact that I represented the Boeing company, so I condemn all third party ads, we had nothing to do with it and I really don’t know anything about it,” denied Lord.”
So stick to the issue, QUALIFICATIONS, the ad is true. Lord is not doing anything dirty. Wilson failed the bar, is not a US Supreme Court Attorney, has used his Dad left and right (he is all over his site), Cannot be a Judge in SC, and has no management experience of attorney’s. Nor has he been involved in any serious civil cases. Wilson has not disputed any of this.
Also over a week delay in the Rag Head comment is unbelievable he did not know it because he was too busy.
Wilson vet yes, attorney yes, former assistant AG and assistant Solicitor yes, for AG no. Its not enough and bringing this case to stop the ad shows poor judgment. He made it worse and it has even more attention now. Great job. Plus if the ad is not true why hide behind technical issues and try to stop it? Face it head on if as AI says he has “stones”. The real problem is its all true.
By Bough June 21, 2010 at 1:22 pm
The ad reeks of the classic “Hail Mary” that campaigns do when the get their last poll numbers in and realize they are doomed.
And so it goes with the Lord campaign. Slash and burn and hope.
Never works out.
By timeforchange June 21, 2010 at 1:29 pm
There are no real polls in the race for Attorney General.
By Truth June 21, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Dad, Dad, Dad….
http://www.youtube.com/user/wilsonforag
By Freespeechblues June 21, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Those seeking a lesson in repeated violations of the First Amendment may want to spend a little time researching what the Clemson administration has done to squelch critics. Start here and move forward to the most recent case:
http://www.thefire.org/article/11503.html
By SC Mom June 21, 2010 at 1:44 pm
It does not surprise me in the least that the Wilson camp is trying to squash this ad of cited, true facts. Trying to keep the public from realizing the truth runs in the family. His dad voted for the BAILOUT, but attempted to misdirect the public from thinking about that fact with the “you lie” statement. It’s all just smoke and mirrors with this good ole boy bunch.
By Hmmmmm June 21, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Cliff you made me laugh – especially at the “Lord campaign had nothing to do with the ad” part in addition to the “Lord is the only proven leader”.
I would love to see how Mr. Lord has prosecuted criminals in this state.
And because someone didnt pass the bar the 1st or 2nd time guess what they are still a lawyer. They have the same rights as attorneys who pass it the first time.
The whole state knows that Mr. Lord is behind the “shadow” 3rd party ads.
So come on tell some more funny stories -
By AI June 21, 2010 at 2:28 pm
I’d am curious if Lord ever argued a case before the U.S. Supreme Court or if he just got the sponsor and paid the fee to be licensed.
By AI June 21, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Oops. I meant I am curious…
By Excuuuse me June 21, 2010 at 2:57 pm
If you want to talk about Wilson’s father, why not mention Lord’s daddy-in-law? Seems reasonable that Gayle Averyt would be a source of quick cash for such a TV buy. Or maybe the source is the powers-that-be at Nexsen Pruet ready to take over the AG’s office
By Calhoun St. June 21, 2010 at 3:00 pm
This reminds me of the 2000 South Carolina Republican primary when voters received anonymous phone calls informing them that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child and that McCain’s wife was a drug addict.
If Leighton Lord is elected tomorrow, then he will be remembered forever for his negativity, his personal smear campaign against the Wilsons, and his anonymous attack ads of questionable legality.
How low will Leighton Lord go? Will his ambition stop at nothing?
By Florida Watching June 21, 2010 at 3:21 pm
Dang Will – I thought that was Nikki……….during one of those bondage moments.
By timeforchange June 21, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Ironic that Alan Wilson has already behaved like knee-jerk Henry trying to stop the truth from coming out. This is a perfect example of a frivolous lawsuit. Taxpayer dollars wasted and he’s just a candidate. If he’s willing to pull this kind of stunt now what will he do if he is elected.
Leighton Lord has run a clean campaign. VOTE LORD & HALEY TOMORROW! Just say no to good ole boys!
By Catherine June 21, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Rules are rules. If you don’t follow the rules, you don’t play. Simple as that. Even if its something as silly as getting paperwork filled out correctly. If you do it, then you don’t have this problem.
Everyone wants the rules to apply to everyone else — But them.
By Dylan Sanders June 21, 2010 at 3:52 pm
Like most people in South Carolina I’m glad the primaries are almost over. This year by far has been the most negative campaigning I’ve seen in the last 20 years. With that said I don’t see anything wrong with that ad. It’s sad to see a military veteran like Alan Wilson be so anti-free speech. It would be a mistake to let someone so anti-free speech to be Attorney General. That is why I’m voting for Leighton Lord a man who believes in free speech.
By varga June 21, 2010 at 4:00 pm
That apple (Alan) sure did not fall from the tree (Joe)
By Truth June 21, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Wanna talk about following rules, Catherine?? Alan Wilson doesn’t even legally belong on the ballot tomorrow.
http://bradwarthen.com/?p=6370
Tough titties
By LP June 21, 2010 at 5:00 pm
il pathetico as usual.
By Anonymous June 21, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Wilson’s campaign is kind of pitiful. I can’t find a single video on his website that doesn’t include his father. Still, I don’t envy him. I’d much rather inherit 100 mil (or be married to a woman who was doing so) than a slightly enhanced shot at a political office.
By Catherine June 21, 2010 at 5:50 pm
Hey “Truth”
Yeah, like I’m gonna pay attention to some way-left-wing wacko that spouts “truthisms” from Carol Fowler and other SC Dems.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t your own party try to “eliminate” someone last week that wasn’t “legit”?
In a Dems eyes, if the “right” person doesn’t win, then it must not be legit.
The irony of your party of favor’s debacle last week was just astonishing. If Vic Rawl was a republican raising hell about losing to a mentally challenged black guy, Clyburn would have wet his pants with indignation.
As it was, Clyburn wanted Greene out, so it had to be “rigged” right?
You and your website have no credibility. Pick another.
By Billy Bob June 21, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Alan Wilson appears to be an OK guy despite his a..hole father. Leighton Lord is a slick Willie if ever I saw one.
By Walt June 21, 2010 at 6:23 pm
I have no love for the SC Democratic Party. But it certainly appears they are onto something here.
I just read the SC Code of Regulations and it reads that the statement of economic interests is “required to be filed with the Commission no later than April 15.”
(http://www.scstatehouse.gov/coderegs/c052.htm)
According to the SC State Ethics Commission website, Mr. Wilson filed his on May 19th. Was this because he didn’t want to reveal the collateral for that big loan he got from the bailout bank?
I find this particularly curious considering the Wilson campaign went to the State Supreme Court today to argue that that 3rd party group hadn’t filed things correctly and therefore should not be allow to run a truthful ad.
Actually on second thought, why would I expect more from a young ‘en who’s only being practicing law for 7 years and thinks he’s ready to become the most powerful lawyer in the state.
Oh, wait… he’s the son of a Congressman. Talk about delusions of grandeur!
By eggaday June 21, 2010 at 7:18 pm
it’s a great ad. none of these candidates are qualified. none of them are leaders. none of them are statesmen.
By Boomer Drummond June 21, 2010 at 8:02 pm
I’m voting for Lord. It doesn’t bode well that Daddy’s Boy (and that what he is) is suing to stop an ad that he doesn’t like even though the ad is TOTALLY TRUE. Hello, Alan, didn’t they teach you about the First Amendment in law school???? I can’t stand politicians who try to use the courts to further their own political ambitions. Not the type of Attorney General I want.
By R June 21, 2010 at 10:07 pm
What do you expect from the SC Nazi Party (aka State Legislature). The corrupt, crooked, self-serving legislators appoint all the judges and state judges will kiss their ass. We probably have the only legislature that doesn’t record their votes. They’ll do whatever it takes to quell anyone shining light on their crooked ways. What’s that? You want to run an ad pointing out legit failings on a good ole boy candidate? They’ll have their lapdog judges declare it null and void. To hell with the First Amendment.
How long has Alan Wilson been an attorney? Seven years? I just want to know what Alan’s done on his own. I mean daddy got him into law school (couldn’t get in on his own), daddy pulled strings to get him to pass the Bar (couldn’t pass it on his own). I’m sure Daddy Wilson called in a favor from Chief Whore of the Legislature Jean “Hell on Wheels” Toal. Daddy got Alan is job. Daddy is making robo phone calls for Alan. Daddy is sending out postcards for Alan. Daddy is at Alan’s press conferences. Daddy is running Alan’s campaign. When Alan finds out he hasn’t a clue what the Attorney General actually does is daddy going to run in and do this for him too?
By WorkingTommyC June 21, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Free speech means free speech. It does not matter a d–n from whom or what is the source.
By Actually Informed June 21, 2010 at 10:46 pm
It really is sad how uninformed some of you idiots are, especially since you get the same vote that people who actually are get … it’s the same story as Alvin Greene, except that the shoe is now on the other foot (Repubs).
The Ad in question is blatantly tied to Lord, but that is beside the point, and no doubt the subject of the yet to-be-concluded state ethics violation investigation (the suit today, unfortunately for Kincannon and his fellow d-bags is nowhere near conclusion). Free speech is not unlimited, and in this situation it is fully regulated as campaign speech. In other words, even though you have a right to say anything truthful, which no one disputes this Ad does, you must still comply with the state ethics laws of disclosure.
This particular Ad reeks of impropriety, and it starts with Kincannon – a two-bit pompous prick who clearly has an inflated view of himself. The SC Truth Squad, behind the Wilson Ad, was funded just last Wednesday and Thursday with 90K in donations – which it immediately spent on the Ad – from a separate BS PAC that was only formed on Thursday. The Truth Squad was founded by a 20 year old student who apparently is related to Kincannon, and the PAC that made the donation to the Truth Squad was founded by … you guessed it, another 20-something student who conveniently also works for Kincannon. None of this was disclosed until the suit was brought, and no one still knows where a 20 year old assistant happened to come up with 90K in one day. I’ve got a good guess though, and his initials are LEIGHTON LORD and his campaign.
Just like the other negative Ads he has been running, Lord has proven himself a shady campaigner willing to take whatever low road it takes to reach his goal, not to mention a political hack. Good thing he has no shot tomorrow.
By RachelCox June 21, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Isn’t kind of ironic that a guy who says he is going to “defend the constitution” is now trying to block an add that is clearly constitutional? Come on Alan, stop being a baby! Lord had 3rd-party negative adds played against him at the beginning of the race, now its your turn.
By Calhoun Fawls June 22, 2010 at 5:57 am
This SC Truth Squad is shady. I thought you were for transparency, Will. Of does only apply to the others guys and not Lord and Haley?
By BJB from SC June 22, 2010 at 6:37 am
L2 nt involved? Slick willy isn’t stupid, only paid. Dad might be a majr influence on Wilson, but daddy in law is buying an election for Lord. At least Wilson learned hard work and service. Lord learned to use his in laws finanaces to revive a campaign as the top fund raiser and most resources to come in second. After finding out Condon, McMaster and Bolchoz could not be bought, and two going to Wilson, he freaked out an went negative (after toutingR eagan’s 11th Commandment).
Lord blew it and went negative with his wife’s money. Go back up north with your Democrat friends with your tail between your legs. Anyone but Lord. Hatin’ Leighton.
By SubZeroIQ June 22, 2010 at 9:02 am
Thank you FITS for posting the link back to your reporting of the State Supreme Court’s decision on Judge Seagars-Andrews case.
That is when and how I first found your website and started posting on it.
And it goes to show you how things are inter-related.
It also goes to show you that other races are even more important, and affect our lives more directly, than who the Republican candidate for Governor is.
I posted back in March 2010 that we should consider a ballot initiative to reform the way judges are elected in South Carolina.
NO! I do not agree with FITS that it should be a nomination by the Governor with approval by the Legislature, or even an up-or-down referendum by the public at large.
Judicial independence means just that: independence from the other two branches of government. No Governor and no Legislator should be involved.
Back then I proposed, and still do, a system whereby the judges themselves nominate judges for up-or-down non-partisan approval by the entire electorate.
I explained the advangates of such system; and I also advocated that it be linked to a self-sustaining budget for the courts and prisons.
If this site is to redeem itself and make itself more than juvenile sex-obsessed yellers, it is to reopen this discussion.
This website can redeem itself by becoming the center for collecting and forwarding petitions for a ballot initiative on judicial reform in South Carolina.
By Darth June 22, 2010 at 9:26 am
Geez, all this over the Acorn, Code Pink and Moveon.org Nimrods run an ad that Wilson ought to have called on Lord to repudiate for dissing ALL of the commissioned officers, Militia, National Guard, Reserves and Active Duty in the barb that, since he’s been a lawyer (over the past seven years), he’s had no management experience. Knowing that Mr. Wilson still serves as a weekend warrior AND has an active commission as a Major, the cheap shot blankets Mick Zais (retired General), Stovall Witte (retired Colonel), Katherine Jenerette (still serving), Charleston Sheriff Al Cannon (USAF reserves Colonel), General Stan Spears, Democrat Robert Burton and a host of others ranging from the late General William Westmoreland to Lt. Clebe McClary and the host of heroes whose names grace the rolls in the Medal of Honor Museum on the Yorktown.
Maybe, even though an air of “plausible deniability” surrounds the ad, Mr. Lord and his campaign have nothing to do with that ad. I would hope that they don’t, as I cannot imagine a conservative or a Republican or a responsible American citizen so blithely condemning men and women who have gone in harms way so that the likes of the avowed physical coward Bill Clinton, avowed terrorist Bill Ayers and many bloggers still have freedom of speech.
Tis’ a shame that it isn’t a federal election, McCain-Feingold-Hollings incumbent protection fiat might well be quite LIBERALLY applied, with extreme prejudice by an Obama Justice Department with an obvious conflict of interest… it might be enough to distract MSM from Podesta, Podesta, Soros and BP (looks uglier than Cheney and Halliburton ever were).
By Darth June 22, 2010 at 9:31 am
I’ll grant that the ad is worthy of ranking with Jefferson’s dirty politics with his campaign against John Adams… though a “Nixonian plausible deniability” permeates it.
By libertarian June 22, 2010 at 11:23 am
Both of these AG candidates are highly, highly flawed. I don’t know much about the Democratic candidate but there is a good chance I will vote for him in November based on the history of these 2 clowns.