Monday, June 21, 2010

Lord-Wilson campaigns in search of "seconds"

Just this morning, The Washington Post had an article in which they humorously accused both Lord and Wilson of being "derelict in their duty to produce tabloid fodder." All in all, it was a nice piece for both candidates, detailing the relatively genteel nature of their race compared to the rest of our state's campaigns. Although...we don't think it does wonder's for the "daddy's boy" attacks that have been hurled at Wilson to have the Post describe his father's involvement in his boy's personal life the way the article plays it.

Nevertheless, we suppose due to each candidate not wanting to be considered soft after that Post piece, the two campaigns have elected to commence a "duel" at 4:30 pm this afternoon on Gervais Street. According to John Monk's write up in The State, the South Carolina Supreme Court is scheduled to hold an emergency hearing today to see whether or not a third party ad attacking Wilson can be aired. On Saturday, Wilson's camp managed to get a temporary restraining order prohibiting the airing of the ad issued by Circuit Judge Knox McMahon. On Sunday, the SC Supreme Court overturned that TRO and scheduled this afternoon's hearing.

So what's the big deal?

The 30-second ad attacks Wilson for flunking the bar exam and criticizes him for being a Congressman’s son. Alan Wilson’s stepfather is Joe Wilson, a Republican congressman from Lexington famous for shouting “You lie,” during a speech by President Obama in 2009.

In legal papers filed with the Supreme Court, Wilson’s campaign notes that already the Truth Squad has spent at least $59,000 on the ads, which it has aired in “multiple media markets” throughout the state.

A “serious question” exists about whether the ads comply with transparency standards in state ethics law, and the only remedy is the immediate banning of the ads, since they have the potential to do “irreparable harm” to Wilson’s campaign, Wilson’s campaign asserts.

So what will happen this afternoon? Who knows. The only thing we can hope for, is that upon issuing their ruling, the Supremes will announce: "That will be all, gentleman, good day." At which point we hope the losing party seeks to push the issue by starting to talk again at which point the Court declares: "We said GOOD DAY!" and walks out.

No comments: