(Click to enlarge the ad. I left it a large image so you could read the full text. But, seriously, it's a really big image.)
The American Family Association of Indiana PAC continues their popular Propaganda Tour 2007 with stops in Booneville and Newburgh this weekend. While last weekend they dropped in on Anderson to demean and distort Terri Austin's vote against SJR-7, this weekend they've targeted Russ Stilwell.
The PAC is a spin off of Micah Clark's American Family Association of Indiana and while we're used to various organizations and non-profits dividing into (c)3's, (c)4's and PACs, it seems that there might be some question of the legality of the AFA PAC.
As Gary Welsh from Advance Indiana wrote on Saturday:
"According to the Indiana Secretary of State's records and its own website, the AFA of Indiana is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation. Such organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office...
There is a separate AFA of Indiana PAC as well... A 501(c)(3), unlike 501(c)(4) organizations, are not allowed to form political action committees under federal tax rules."
My favorite "honest-to-gosh question" in this ad?
The hit piece poses the question (emphasis theirs) "Why did he claim before casting his vote that he was suddenly confused by the amendment when he had several legal opinions saying SJR7 would do ONLY what supporters have always said: Prevent court ordered same-sex marriage and civil unions. Rep. Stilwell placed his own confusion over the will of the people saying, 'If I don't know what it means, it does not belong in the Constitution.'"
Umm, let me take a swing at that, Micah. Are you honestly stupid enough to believe that the briefs your side submitted were the only ones the legislators were given - that the papers from out-of-state legal firms you gave them were the only viewpoints they got? So if you can realize that those opposed to SJR-7 probably had some talking points too, can you also figure out that they must have had an impact on whether or not the issue was as crystal clear as you seem to think it is? That's simply a red herring and only done to muddy the waters further.
As for the "confusion" statement... You know, I don't really understand the whole E=mc2 equation. I've got the basics, but not the full grasp I'd need. Do I think it should go in the Constitution? Uh, no. Why not? Because I don't know enough about it and the Constitution is a sacred document. Would you allow The DaVinci Code believers to add that book to the Bible? While I understand that you'd be opposed to it on general grounds, wouldn't one of your arguments be "No one has done enough research to prove this one way or another. Therefore, we should proceed cautiously and without haste?" And wouldn't that be a darn good argument?
Now go extrapolate, Micah. And get back on the Christian side of the law. (You know, as in "Do not spread false reports. Do not help a wicked man by being a malicious witness." and "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." [NIV])