Pope versus Morgan - Chapter 5 - The 2006 Republican Primaries

They accused Eddins and three other Republican legislators of selling out Republicans by giving Democrats control of the State House (when they elected Morgan and Black Co-Speakers). But they ignored that they had tried to make their own deal to share power with Black.

Pope’s group attacked Representative Robert Grady, saying he was a Democrat masquerading as a Republican. When a reporter asked Grady to comment, Grady sighed and said he’d done his best to get along with both factions but it was like dealing with two sides of a messy divorce. It was just impossible.

Robert Grady may not have agreed with Art Pope and Leo Daughtry in 2003 about who should lead Republicans in the House – but he is no Democrat. But, then, just when it looked like Pope’s allies had gone too far, Richard Morgan threw a mudball of his own. He filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections alleging Art Pope had violated State Law by making hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal corporate political contributions.

Morgan’s charge was untrue; and it was also hypocritical. Two years before, Morgan had done the same thing he accused Pope of doing. He had set up his own ‘issue advocacy’ group, funded it with corporate money and used it to attack his opponents.

Several years ago, I advised another group that ran issue ads critical of Richard Morgan. Morgan promptly filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections to stop their ads too, and, as a result, I got a hands on in court education on how the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States works. And it’s a pretty great thing.

The Elections Board sided with Morgan and ruled the ads the group were running had to stop. But the federal courts overturned the Board’s ruling hands down. This election, Morgan tried to do exactly the same thing to Art Pope. He asked the State Board to stop Pope from running ads.

The Courts have established a very clear standard defining what an issues advocacy group can say in politics and political campaigns. They cannot urge people to vote for or against a candidate. But they can say anything they want to criticize or praise a candidate’s stand on an issue.

If it sounds odd that the Courts allow people to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to criticize a candidate on an issue just before an election, they had a clear reason to do that. The purpose of the First Amendment is to allow the maximum of free speech and political debate. The Courts drew a line in the sand to do that. To give us the most debate. Not half the most. Not the least. The most.

What Richard Morgan wants to do is move that line. He argues the fact that Pope’s ads are about issues doesn’t matter. He says that what does matter is why Pope ran those ads. And he says the reason is simple: to defeat him in his election.

But, when it comes to freedom of speech the Courts don’t, and shouldn’t, care about Art Pope’s – or anyone else’s – motives. They care about is what they say.

If we let Boards of Elections or political figures determine what people can – or cannot – say in a political debate based on their motives we open a Pandora’s Box. Because every politician who wants to silence an opponent can attack their motives.

The American political system of free debate is messy. Candidates lie, dissemble, smear their opponents and mislead voters. But the solution we have chosen is to give the victims of those attacks the same right to answer them and set the record straight.

Art Pope’s issue ads did one important thing. They created a debate inside the Republican Party about Morgan’s leadership. Morgan felt what Pope said about his leadership was wrong, but his remedy is to answer Pope – not to stop him from speaking out.

Gary may be right – as he wrote when Morgan filed his complaint – the Board of Elections may agree with Morgan. Their goal is to enforce the State Election Laws – not to maximize free speech. From their point of view the Courts exempting issue advocacy groups like – Art Pope’s – from their control makes their mission more difficult. But the sanctity of the First Amendment matters more than the Board’s regulations.

Pope and his allies ran ads criticizing five Republicans. One of them, Julia Howard, won by default when the Elections Board ruled her opponent did not live in her district. Another, Robert Grady, won reelection with almost 70% of the vote. A third, Rick Eddins, lost by almost 2 to 1. Another, Steven LaRogue, lost by seven votes. And Richard Morgan was defeated 52% to 48%.

What will happen to the two feuding factions now that Morgan will not be returning to the House? Without Morgan will his faction fragment or will a new leader emerge? Who will emerge as the leader of Pope’s faction inside the House?

The next Chapter will begin when the legislature convenes later this month. We’ll see what happens.