[ad_1]
A recent Texas lawsuit has opened a new front in the ongoing battle for gold’s dominance in politics. It has become a prime example of how wealthy individuals and powerful corporations seek to exercise political influence while avoiding public accountability.
As Jordan Uhl reported in his January 2023 article, leverTexas billionaire Kelsey Warren, who made his fortune with gas and propane pipelines, publicly criticized Warren’s $1 million donation to the governor of Texas, prompting former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto. I’m suing O’Rourke for defamation. Republican Greg Abbott, 2021.
In the course of his election campaign, O’Rourke held Texas oil and gas companies accountable for the devastating consequences of the February 2021 ice storm that provided power to more than 4.5 million people and killed hundreds. He criticized Abbott for not inflicting it. He brought in $2.4 billion in profits for Warren’s company, his Energy Transfer Partners, according to earnings reports for the first quarter of 2021.
In June 2021, Warren made the single largest donation to a state or federal campaign as a contribution to Abbott’s reelection, as documented by the Texas Ethics Commission and the Federal Election Commission. rice field. As Wool reported, “Warren said that Energy had two weeks into his two weeks after the governor signed into law a law containing a loophole that would allow natural gas companies like Transfer to opt out of winterization mandates on their energy infrastructure. He later handed cash to Abbott’s campaign.”
Warren, its net worth forbes Estimated at $5 billion, it claims that O’Rourke’s criticisms tarnished his reputation and caused him “mental distress.”
Beyond the interests of Warren, Abbott and O’Rourke, the defamation lawsuit could set a precedent for wealthy donors to use their financial clout to cool down or silence speech about money in politics. There is a nature. As Wool wrote, Warren’s lawsuit “could send an intimidating message to political candidates across the country. You may face severe punishment.”
Warren is playing the equivalent of a high stakes game of Texas Hold’em Poker. His legal hand is unlikely to win in court, but his bluffs are likely to make his critics fold.
Why Warren is unlikely to win in court
Under Texas defamation law, Kelsey Warren’s case is unlikely to win for three reasons. O’Rourke’s accusations that Warren gained political clout are likely true, or at least highly plausible, based on publicly available evidence.
Second, and related to this, the disagreement is about opinion, as the facts regarding the size, timing, and broader context of Warren’s campaign contribution to Abbott are not disputed. In most states, including Texas, subjective opinions about individuals, no matter how disparaging (or unfounded) they may be, are generally not actionable. And in this case, O’Rourke’s disdainful view of Warren rests on a wealth of factual evidence.
Third, and finally, despite Warren’s claim that he is a private person, the billionaire is clearly not the Supreme Court’s definition of a “public person” because he “never ran for public office in the state.” Suitable forof Gerts vs Welch (1974) the High Court defined a public figure as a person “of general fame or notoriety in the community and who is widely involved in the orderliness of social affairs.”
member of forbes On the list of the 400 richest Americans, Warren is certainly famous. and then Democracy Now! Warren was described as “the Texas billionaire behind the Dakota Access Pipeline,” which was completed by Energy Transfer in 2017 following President Donald Trump’s executive order.
Moreover, based on extensive campaign donations to individual political candidates inside and outside of Texas, as well as numerous National Political Action Committees (PACs) conducted through Energy Transfer Partners in his own name, Warren is clearly a political process has been “extensively involved” in , Texas and throughout the United States. As such, in order to win his case against O’Rourke, Warren must prove actual malice in order to claim damages.
How Warren Wins Even When He Loses
Warren is unlikely to win in court, but he could win the larger political battle. His legal bluffs can cause future opponents to fold or hesitate before criticizing him in public. The ultimate goal of Warren’s defamation suit is to intimidate the defendant and send a chilling message to other potential critics.
This is a clear example of a Strategic Action Against Social Participation (SLAPP). The concept was introduced by sociologist Penelope Cannan and law professor George W. Pulling in his 1988 article. Expression. “
Despite the early warnings of Canan and Pring, SLAPP is becoming more popular today. For example, in January 2023, open democracy The British government has revealed that it helped Russian oligarch Evgeny Prigozhin to void sanctions and launch a “targeted legal attack” against British investigative journalist Elliott Higgins. Prigogine’s legal assault on Higgins was documented by a study on the threats facing international journalists investigating high-level financial crimes, published by the UK-based Foreign Policy Center (FPC) in 2020. conforms to the given pattern. Journalists surveyed reported facing the threat of lawsuits against them as a result of their reporting. Global elites used their legal and financial powers to target journalists with defamation lawsuits, social media attacks, harassing phone calls and, in extreme cases, physical violence.
But as Jordan Wool emphasized in the report, Warren’s lawsuit represents an “escalation” of legal tactics to deter critical speech.
Fighting Over Texas’ Anti-SLAPP Law
Texas is one of 28 states that have laws restricting the use of SLAPP. The Texas Citizen Participation Act (TCPA) may provide additional protections for O’Rourke. Defendants in her SLAPP litigation for frivolity can seek dismissal if they are being sued as a result of First Amendment protected speech. O’Rourke’s remarks about Warren are typical First Amendment protected speeches “on matters of public interest” made in the context of a campaign. Even the most conservative Supreme Court justices view this type of election communication as protected speech (e.g., Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission).
Nonetheless, there is cause for concern because the Texas legislature recently revised the TCPA to limit its scope and effectiveness in cases such as Warren’s lawsuit against O’Rourke. HB 2730 signed. The statute requires a defendant seeking to dismiss a SLAPP case to prove that its allegations “are based on” the First Amendment’s rights of speech and association, rather than simply “relating to them.” I have. Despite this change, the TCPA will likely support O’Rourke’s efforts to get a judge to dismiss Warren’s case.
Protect large donors from public scrutiny and criticism
Finally, to take a step back and have a broader perspective, Warren’s SLAPP for O’Rourke is against the backdrop of dark money (political spending by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors) and its corrosive effects on public trust in government. should be understood as Especially elections.
As project censorship Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to identify the source of dark money donations, as reported in our analysis of the most important cover-up stories of 2021-2022. have also enacted laws that make them more difficult, ultimately protecting them from public scrutiny.
The ruthless principle that ties together the rise of “dark money darker” state laws and Warren’s lawsuit against O’Rourke is an oligarchic desire to wield political influence without public criticism or accountability. In opposing that aim, advocates of democracy must continue to shine a spotlight on elite efforts, large and small, legal and outrageous, to silence critics and shield themselves from accountability. I have to.
[ad_2]
Source link
