Who cares....
Apparently not the Republican National Congressional Campaign, better known as the NRCC.
Twice already this campaign, the AARP has taken the NRCC to task for violating the group's trademark policy by using the AARP name in its campaign mailings. The AARP strictly prohibits any political campaign from using its name in any and all campaign materials. That's something the NRCC knows already, because four years ago in the first race between U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, and Democratic challenger Joseph Courtney they did the same thing - and they were told not to do it anymore.
But they don't care....because they sent out a mailing last month using the AARP name - and then a second mailing a couple of weeks ago using the AARP name - and this past weekend, they sent out yet a third mailing using the AARP name.
Obviously the NRCC doesn't care one bit about the AARP or the misleading information contained in its mailing - but we already knew that. they only care about one thing - winning the election no matter what.
No wonder Republicans are having a hard time in this year's election. This is just another example of the arrogrance their party organization show towards people and other organizations.
Twice already this campaign, the AARP has taken the NRCC to task for violating the group's trademark policy by using the AARP name in its campaign mailings. The AARP strictly prohibits any political campaign from using its name in any and all campaign materials. That's something the NRCC knows already, because four years ago in the first race between U.S. Rep. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, and Democratic challenger Joseph Courtney they did the same thing - and they were told not to do it anymore.
But they don't care....because they sent out a mailing last month using the AARP name - and then a second mailing a couple of weeks ago using the AARP name - and this past weekend, they sent out yet a third mailing using the AARP name.
Obviously the NRCC doesn't care one bit about the AARP or the misleading information contained in its mailing - but we already knew that. they only care about one thing - winning the election no matter what.
No wonder Republicans are having a hard time in this year's election. This is just another example of the arrogrance their party organization show towards people and other organizations.
posted by Ray Hackett at 1:40 PM
9 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't understand Ray, is the NRCC doing something illegal? If so, then the AARP should take appropriate legal action.
If I was part of a political committee and put out a campaign mailer saying I thought the AARP was a hypocritical, unorganized and biased organization with questionable motives and low credibility, would I be violating their policy? I bet I would but that's just too bad because I think I'm exercising my 1st Amendment right of free speech.
I also don't understand your link to your statement about Republicans in general "just another example of the arrogance..." Well gee Ray, if this is "another" what were the previous ones? Drawing conclusions about all Republicans (which you just did) based on your questionable complaints about one very small group of the entire party is not at all fair and could be classified as offensive.
I used to think you were pretty fair and non-partisan but your blog entry here doesn't support my former high opinion of you.
Bill...The NRCC is in violation of the AARP federally protected trademark and has been warned repeatedly that the organization does not permit anyone from using their name in partisan campaign materials. They were warned in 2002, in June of 2006 - and as late as Oct. 9 after ignoring those warnings and sending out two campaign mailers using the AARP.
AARP contends that the mailings "willfully" misrepresents the organization's position as well violates its trademark policy.
So...yes, if you were to use their name in a campaign mailing as member ofand part of partisan political campaign, you would be violation of that same trademark policy.
As for my comment regarding maybe that's why Republicans are having so much trouble - I'll concede to you that you might have a point that I painted that one with a broad brush. I certainly did not mean to imply that every Republican is guilty of this type of activity.
What I meant was that, in conversations with representatives of the NRCC in relationship to this particular issue - they simply ignore it. When asked directly for a comment about the AARP claims, letters and demands that they stop using their name - they won't answer the question and then launch into an attack on the Democratic candidate.
I have said many times that both national political organizations leave little to like when they become engaged in these races. The NRCC, however, has demonstrated in the past - and today - a slight edge in the arrogance category.
Despite all the warnings and demands from the AARP, the NRCC sent out not one, not two, but three mailings using the group's name. They simply could care less if AARP likes or not - they're going to do what they want...periord, end conversation.
No Ray. It is you that is wrong. There is no trademark rights to speech. Wrong country.
I have the right to say what I please and if there is any policy that says I can't than it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
I -- or any group I am affiliated with -- may use AARP’s published opinions any way we so chose.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now note the words "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
They are responsible for what they say and if some other third party uses what they say to advocate for candidates that is protected speech.
If anyone want to fine or punish the Republicans for having their say that party should be sued.
Free speech applies to all. Everyone from saints to racists. Not one person should have his or her views silenced by a privileged class or group.
Free speech rights apply to all. Not just journalists.
AARP is not special. They are in fact just another special interest in Washington.
Case closed.
mccommas...you are correct in your argument that there is no trademark on free speech. But there are trademarks on property - and the name AARP is a property owned by that organization and protected under federal trademark laws. They have ever right to control how their name is used and for what purposes. And they have decided to prohibit any political organization from using their name in campaign materials - and that is their right. The NRCC is violating that right when it uses their name without their permission.
Wrong!
That would be like me saying that you can't use something I say in a published letter to prove a point you would like to make. You have every right to do that. That’s protected speech.
I suppose I “own” my own name – John McCommas, but that is not to say that someone can’t say “John McCommas said this once and he made this point very well here so you should vote for Sam Smith”. That is protected speech.
Now maybe I might think such a statement is a mischaracterization -- or I may not wish to be involved in a particular campaign as in your ARRP case. But anyone has the right to use anything I might have said in the past any way they chose to make a point they want to make. That is protected speech.
And I have the right to speak publicly about what I truly meant --and they can respond to that -- and so the ball gets thrown back and forth. That is political discourse. This is protected speech. This is how elections are supposed to be. Those listening will make up their own mind which side is right and vote accordingly. I have enough faith the persuasiveness of my opinions not to need to resort to censorship. Don’t you?
We do not need government agencies going around saying “you can’t say that, you can’t say that” with a wagging scolding finger. This isn’t France. I can say I think AARP is from Venus and that the Young Republicans are from Mars if I so choose. How believable I am in such a statement is for others to decide. But I have the right to say it. That’s not debatable.
Now you see Ray, I just used “AARP” in a sentence just there. I want everyone to vote for Rob Simmons. Vote Simmons!
Was that illegal? Will I have to pay a fine or go to jail? I will refuse to pay Ray. I won’t. So I guess I will go to prison if you are right.
But you aren’t right. If AARP publishes an opinion than a third party – ANY THIRD PARTY AT ALL INCLUDING REPUBLICANS-- can absolutely say "AARP said this and so therefore vote for Sam Smith." That is protected speech.
If ARRP doesn't like it than that’s just too damn bad Ray. They have no more rights to control how their name is used than I do mine. ARRP is mistaken. What’s more If any government action arises to repress speech than that agency should be sued for UN-CONSITITUIONAL actions. Which it would be.
ARRP consists of Americans who are of equal rank to me. We do not live if a class society. ARRP is a special interest group no different than pro-abortion groups, the NRA or the ACLU. They have a right to assemble and to petition the government but so does everyone else.
Protected speech must never be stifled no matter what that speech might be. Everyone from saints to racists gets their say in the USA. It’s protected.
It is a journalist’s job to watchdog the First Amendment, not to parcel it out unevenly. When I was growing up it was fashionable to say:
“I may not agree with what you say, but I will stand up right next to you and defend your right to say it”.
What ever became of that quaint ideal?
If it’s protected speech for someone to burn an American flag but normal everyday garden variety political discourse has to be controlled and regulated or even silenced in the manner you are suggesting than you are reading a very different Constitution than I am.
Thanks for the explanation Ray, I guess I just don't understand how a group can "trademark" the name of their organization which then shields them from criticsm. Now okay, I'm not an attorney but it just doesn't seem right to me.
Again, if the AARP thinks they have a valid court case, then they can complain to the US Attorney's Office and see if anything happens. Until they do, their claims that the NRCC is violating their trademark policy are meaningless. Last time I checked, that's for the courts to decide, not the AARP.
I wish I had the power to say: "Hey, you can't say ANYTHING about me because I said you can't. I am king, it is good to be king."
As far as the NRCC misrepresenting the AARP's positions on things, I'd say the AARP already does a fine job of that all by themselves since they have a history or talking out of both sides of their mouths and many people question their integrity in the first place.
Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I like to think in the 30 some of years of doing this I've learned a little something.
No one is suggesting that the AARP - or any other organization - is exempted from criticism. They're not and can - and have - been criticized for their positions. But that's not the issue here.
The issue here is using their name in campaign materials which they have made a point of saying is not allowed. And yes, they can protect their name because it is a trademark.
An example, Jimmy Buffett owns a string of restaurants called Margaritaville. There have been several lawsuits filed by his organization against others alleging trademark violations by individuals who have opened Mexican restaurants using that name as part of their establishment's name. The concern is - for Buffett - that consumers might be confused and think that these others - who may not subscribe to the same level of service as his chain - are related, and thus walk away with a bad impression of his business.
The same applies here in this dispute over the use of the AARP name. The campaign material being sent out by the NRCC states very clearly that the "AARP opposed Joe Courtney's stance..." (name the issue). That is simply not true. The AARP has never opposed Joe Courtney's position on anything - nor any other candidate for that matter. It is misleading and creates an impression that that the AARP has taken a position in this race.
The AARP takes positions on issues - not candidates and campaigns. To them, that is an extremely importance difference - and one they feel needs to be protected.
Now...how does the NRCC even get away with doing something like that. Simple...they play with words.
The fact is...the AARP did oppose the legislation to consolidate the state's Department of Aging, and testified against the bill during the legislation hearings in Hartford back in 1992.
Joe Courtney voted in favor of the measure.
The NRCC has taken the position that "the AARP therefore, opposed Courtney's stance" on that issue.
So, mccomma...if you wanted to take issue with the AARP's position on an issue - and used their name in a campaign piece related to that issue - this issue of trademark violation wouldn't come into play - and AARP would be fair game.
But...if you wanted to use the AARP name in a campaign piece related to a political campaign, implying that AARP has taken a position on the race - it is a violation of their trademark policy.
Absolute rubbish. You contradicted yourself numerous times.
You say that AARP took a position that in which Courtney voted the opposite way. The Republicans pointed this out.
So?
Sorry Ray. There is not a thing wrong with that. Fair game. If AARP doesn’t like it that people talk about their positions around election time than they should not take positions on issues.
And nice of you to at least concede that I may criticize ARRP but what if I want to agree with them on something and want to say in a mailing (or any form of speech whatever) “Courtney voted against this policy and so vote for Rob Simmons?”
What other groups are so privileged? What about the CATO Institute? Are they similarly trademarked? I may not quote their study saying that Maine’s Public Financing has not “cleaned up” campaigns but only entrenched incumbents?
Or what about the Windham Wetlands Commission?
I can’t say the Wetlands Commission voted against this policy which my opponent favors so vote for me?
Your Margaritaville analogy is nonsensical. The name of a bar and restaurant chain can be trademarked. Ideas and speech cannot. Absolutely Can not. You can not say at election time “You may not make this point that this organization made in favor a political candidate.
I kindly refer you once again to the U.S. Constitution, Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That means the Republicans can say what they please.
Post a Comment
<< Home