Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The GOP is going all out in their ridiculous assault on ACORN. The Buckeye Institute, a conservative think tank in Ohio, has filed suit in a state court on behalf of two voters. Their claim, believe it or not, is based on Ohio's version of RICO, a law designed for use against organized crime racketeering. I've uploaded the complaint here.
The claim for harm by the plaintiffs is that they're concerned that "the elections-related fraud perpetrated by ACORN has diluted the value of their votes, and will continue to do so in the 2008 Elections and beyond." The complaint is basically just a laundry list of every accusation ever made against anyone associated with ACORN since the beginning of time, leading to this conclusion:
The Predicate Acts described above constitute a "pattern of corrupt activity," as that term is defined in R.C. 2923.31(E), given that they have the same or similar purposes, results, participants and methods of commission and are otherwise interrelated and are not isolated events.
This section of the Ohio code is known as the Ohio Corrupt Activity Act (OCAA), which is the state's version of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Both were designed to go after organized crime (and this is not the first time RICO has been misused; it was also used to go after anti-abortion groups, which the courts rightly smacked down).
This is almost identical to a suit filed in 2004 on behalf of two other voters in Ohio. Both the form and the legal arguments are virtual carbon copies of one another. They list and reference every accusation ever made against ACORN to show a "pattern of corrupt activity" and then ask the court to break up the organization and forbid them from operating anymore. That case was filed and then dropped by the plaintiffs in the middle of discovery.
This suit is absurd. Like the Michigan GOP's lawsuit against the Michigan Messenger, this is an example of a SLAPP suit -- Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Here's how Wikipedia defines a SLAPP suit:
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a lawsuit or a threat of lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism.
That is precisely what both suits are designed to do. In neither case could the plaintiffs seriously believe they can win, their intent is to make the defendants pay for an expensive defense and to get the PR boost that comes from filing such a suit. Both cases, I'd be willing to bet, will be withdrawn after the election because there's no way they can win them and they will have outlived their purpose by then.
Politics
Comments
This is almost identical to a suit filed in 2004 on behalf of two other voters in Ohio.
What happened to the 2004 lawsuit? Was it withdrawn after the election, was it thrown out by the courts, or was it settled in some manner?
Posted by: NonyNony | October 20, 2008 10:33 AM
A SLAPP suit generally works best against little groups or individuals who don't have the resources to fight alone and don't have a high enough profile to get well-heeled friends to come to their defense. ACORN is famous enough now, and the stakes high enough, that they wouldn't have to fight this all by themselves and they know it. I can't see them being intimidated out of PP, if that's the real purpose. More likely, the only purpose is to say "ACORN is being sued for voter fraud" and keep the issue alive for PR purposes.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | October 20, 2008 10:51 AM
Is Ohio one of the states that doesn't have anti-SLAPP laws on the books?
Posted by: Anthony | October 20, 2008 11:50 AM
I call this the Palin Approach. They want to make ACORN pay for its own rape kit.
Posted by: John Karabaic | October 20, 2008 12:43 PM
Why not countersue. In a rational society the GOP would have to cease and desist a lot of their activities.
Posted by: natural cynic | October 20, 2008 12:43 PM
The 2004 suit was withdrawn by the plaintiffs. I'm sure this one will be as well, soon after the election. And Ohio does not have an anti-SLAPP law.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | October 20, 2008 1:12 PM
they gain the ability to cry out to the world, "LAWSUIT AGAINST ACORN IN OHIO", which regardless of the validity of the case will mean acorn are guilty in the eyes of a great many people... but it also helps provide a cover for whatever ~actual~ voting irregularities occur. those will be drowned out by ACORNACORNACORN.
Posted by: arin | October 20, 2008 1:51 PM
A similar lawsuit has been filed against ACORN here in Pennsylvania. I think this sentence of the article neatly sums up what the whole issue is really about:
"She says the group has helped 140,000 Pennsylvanians register to vote."
More GOP voter suppression.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | October 20, 2008 2:46 PM
Just curious, but if my voter registration info is purged for some frivolous reason, who do I sue?
:)
Posted by: Michael | October 20, 2008 3:40 PM
Looks like the GOP has admitted to their foreclosure scam: here. That kinda makes the suit the MM frivolous.
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | October 20, 2008 3:58 PM
Michael,
Who can you sue?
Check http://www.whocanisue.com
Posted by: John Hinkle | October 20, 2008 5:56 PM