NRCC is proud of their idea to create fake Dem websites

[Molinaro]

It looks to me like what they are doing could be illegal under US law.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), is an American law enacted in 1999 and that established a cause of action for registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark or personal name.

This part here from that law seems highly relevant:

5. the registrant’s intent to divert customers from the mark owner’s online location that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark;

Using the example linked by Tsukasa Buddha we have the NRCC site:

johnlewis4congress.com

While the official site is:

johnlewisforcongress.com

Someone doing a google search for "john lewis congress" will find both. The one created by the NRCC asks for donations and says some rather negative things about John Lewis. It sure looks like a violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.

 

[Olowkow]

Sounds like the type of high school mentality that Donald Segretti and company were up to in the Watergate era with their "dirty tricks". Or Chris Christie with his outright false ads back in the 90s, which he got soundly sued and dinged for. Even had to take out a 1/4 page apology in the newspaper. Nowadays, these guys have no shame, and take pride in dishonest shenanigans.

I can imagine both sides pull this stuff, but it sure seems like the republicans get caught more often.

 

[Ladewig]

Forum rules are not ethical rules. Cripes, Obama's former chief of staff would not have lasted a day here, what with the swearing.

It is clearly a satire site.

Sure. A satire site with a working donate button on it.

Because the best satire takes money from confused, careless, or rushed people.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm certain that you are not getting he concept of satire. They do not have to "mark it in the intro as such."

The print also is not tiny. The only thing that is even remotely confusing is the title and web site name. If democrats don't read the actual site, hell they should probably not even be voting, amirite?

We're going to make "comprehension" a criteria for people not voting? Whoa! There went the entire Hannity, Huckabee, Beck and O'Reilly audiences!

More interesting is the proof that purportedly "principled" conservatives would, after failing with misdirection, try to term this as acceptable. Nice to see that the spirit of Breitbart lives on in the faithful.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Congrats. Your grand old party is being taken over by INTERNET TROLLS.

It's actually happening.

So, what you're saying is...Ron Paul's gonna get nominated?

 

[Tricky]

I'm certain that you are not getting he concept of satire. They do not have to "mark it in the intro as such."

Holy cow, are you serious? You really think it's perfectly fine to try to mislead people and get them to donate money? Do you define satire as, "If they do it to the Democrats, it's funny"? Is this really the depths that Republican ideology has sunk to, where nothing is beneath them?

The print also is not tiny. The only thing that is even remotely confusing is the title and web site name. If democrats don't read the actual site, hell they should probably not even be voting, amirite?

No, you're not "rite". Not even close. Some people aren't even that literate. Remember back in the Jim Crow days when they had literacy tests for voting? Are your ethics still stuck in that era? Does the GOP need another Joseph N. Welch to slap some sense into them?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is nothing beneath the Republicans these days. Nothing.

 

[catsmate]

Rank partisanship?

Yep.

 

[The Big Dog]

I can't but help wonder if 16.5 would be so forgiving of this if it was instead Republican candidates being smeared by fake web sites put up by the Democratic party.

I can't but help wonder if Corsair would be so poutraged by this if it was instead Republican candidates being satirized by web sites put up by the Democratic party

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I can't but help wonder if Corsair would be so poutraged by this if it was instead Republican candidates being satirized by web sites put up by the Democratic party

But it wasn't.

 

[Tony]

How is this not fraud?

 

[NoahFence]

I can't but help wonder if Corsair would be so poutraged by this if it was instead Republican candidates being satirized by web sites put up by the Democratic party

Speaking for myself, yes. Absolutely. Dishonesty is dishonesty no matter who is doing it. But from where I'm sitting, Republican leadership has themselves a pretty cool monopoly on dishonesty.

 

[Upchurch]

GOOGLE SLAPS ‘REPORTED PHISHING’ WARNING ON IDIOTIC REPUBLICAN SCAM WEBSITE

So, yeah...


eta: This is the site in question. Going straight there does not prompt the Google warning. I'm guessing you have to get there through a search.

 

[NoahFence]

MAN I hope this blows up to Watergate levels.


What do we call this? Deceit-Gate?

 

[Upchurch]

What do we call this? Deceit-Gate?

Phish-gate?

 

[SumDood]

You read the blatantly anti candidate website, right?

"John Lewis is bad for Montana:

After more than a decade working under Baucus, John Lewis has pocketed over $568,000 of taxpayers’ money

Lewis has been laying the groundwork for his campaign by visiting every county in Montana on the taxpayers’ dime

Lewis has spent nearly 12 years working under Baucus and was a top aide to the “chief architect” of Obamcare

Photo was taken by Eliza Wiley

Please come back and visit this site to learn more about why Lewis needs to retire from Washington."

Pretty clear....

And at the top in HUGE letters: "JOHN LEWIS FOR CONGRESS" and a "DONATE" button in huge letters as well. Very misleading.

Forum rules are not ethical rules. Cripes, Obama's former chief of staff would not have lasted a day here, what with the swearing.

It is clearly a satire site. The best thing to do is *********** roll with it.

Hey, what is with those asterisks! Lolz.

Find me another satire site that has a HUGE link to donate to the opposition of what is being satirized.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, you're not "rite". Not even close. Some people aren't even that literate. Remember back in the Jim Crow days when they had literacy tests for voting? Are your ethics still stuck in that era? Does the GOP need another Joseph N. Welch to slap some sense into them?

If you think this is pay back for the Democrats enacting Jim Crow laws throughout the South, I strongly disagree. I am going to put that down as a misguided appeal to emotion.

Further, why I appear to be alone in this, I firmly believe that no one, democrat or not, are going to be mislead by a website that says "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat John Lewis and candidates like him" into thinking it is a pro John Lewis website.

Further, despite the best efforts in this thread, no one is going to be able to convince me that Democrats are dumb enough to be misled. In this fashion.

End of story.

 

[NoahFence]

If you think this is pay back for the Democrats enacting Jim Crow laws throughout the South, I strongly disagree. I am going to put that down as a misguided appeal to emotion.

Further, why I appear to be alone in this, I firmly believe that no one, democrat or not, are going to be mislead by a website that says "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat John Lewis and candidates like him" into thinking it is a pro John Lewis website.

Further, despite the best efforts in this thread, no one is going to be able to convince me that Democrats are dumb enough to be misled. In this fashion.

End of story.

Wow.

Are you saying that Democrats are smarter than Republicans? I gave you an example of blatant dishonesty from the right that the VAST majority of respondents believed. You're saying Democrats can't fall into that trap?

Uh... thanks?

 

[The Big Dog]

Wow.

Are you saying that Democrats are smarter than Republicans? I gave you an example of blatant dishonesty from the right that the VAST majority of respondents believed. You're saying Democrats can't fall into that trap?

Uh... thanks?

No reason to be confused, I have every confidence that people are not dumb enough to give money to "Make a Contribution Today to Help Defeat John Lewis and candidates like him" when they don't want to defeat him.

Hell, call me a people person.

As far as your "example" I don't see one in this thread. Sorry.

 

[Tony]

Wow.

Are you saying that Democrats are smarter than Republicans?

Maybe the Republicans who designed the website think Dem voters are as dumb as Republican voters?