Opinion

Lamars' and Richards' tale is unfolding

This is a tale of two Richards and two Lamars, so pay attention lest you lose the distinctions.

At stake are the hearts and minds of every American, or at least those who live in Congressional District 21. And everyone knows how you seize such vital organs in an election year — political advertising.

Liberated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Citizens United decision, the billionaires behind the new Super PACs are doing so by ladling unlimited amounts of money into negative ads to support particular candidates while remaining, in theory, “independent” of anyone.

But this is not a tale about such radioactive monsters smashing their way to the polls.

This is about a different sort of political action committee, one that calls itself Test PAC.

Test PAC is different because it must adhere to donation limits set by the Federal Election Commission: no more than $2,500 from an individual.

It's not buoyed by billionaires, but rather people like Andy Posterick, an unemployed 25-year-old who's treasurer of Test PAC and raising pittances — five dollars here, 25 dollars there — from supporters online.

Test PAC is also different because it's not backing a particular candidate: Unlike the nominal independence of the Super PACs, this PAC actually supports no one.

There is one similarity: Test PAC is raising money to produce negative ads. And right now, its ads are targeting one politician: U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio.

That's the first Lamar in this story.

Test PAC hates Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, because he sponsors bills that are anathema to anyone who cares about freedom on the Internet.

One bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act, sought to order Internet companies to remove websites that offer pirated content. Outrage ensued because SOPA actually amounts to censorship that would fail to stop online piracy.

Also, the same big-business feed fattening the Super PACs — money, lots of money — likely brought SOPA to the desk of Smith, who has raised more than $92,000 from the entertainment industry in the past year.

In retaliation, Test PAC painstakingly raised $4,500 from hundreds of supporters online.

Then it purchased a digital billboard slot in San Antonio.

After an online vote to pick a design, the ad was ready to go. As in Edvard Munch's “The Scream,” it showed a woman with her hands clasped to her cheeks. A black bar obscured her mouth.

“LAMAR SMITH'S BIG GOVERNMENT CAMPAIGN WILL LEAVE YOU SPEECHLESS,” it read.

Enter the second Lamar in this story: Lamar Advertising Co., the firm that operates the billboard.

It refused to run the ad, Posterick said.

“They just said they wouldn't do negative political ads, which wasn't in the contract that I signed,” he told me.

A manager at Lamar Advertising in Austin didn't return a call.

Quick recap, then: In a grassroots campaign to battle censorship enabled by corporate interests, Test PAC itself was censored by a corporation.

Also: Super PACs can raise as much money as they want to run negative ads, but Test PAC must strain to raise a pittance to be told to stay positive.

Somehow, Posterick had to run a positive ad that also attacked Smith.

Then it dawned on him: Smith's opponents are Richard Morgan and Richard Mack.

Never mind that Morgan is a 24-year-old math whiz who's never held public office and Mack is a former Arizona sheriff who co-authored a book with a racist white separatist.

They both have the same first name and last initial.

And so the billboard, currently up at Interstate 10 and Loop 410, reads, “Vote for Richard M.”

“We had to be pretty creative to create a positive ad that's still a negative ad against Lamar Smith,” Posterick said.

More sheepishly, he added, “Our billboard is really, really hard to understand if you don't know what's going on.”

And that, no doubt, is how the first Lamar likes it.

bchasnoff@express-news.net