"1984" Indeed

Bob Bauer wonders how to categorize the "discussion" surrounding the "1984" attack ad on Hillary Clinton that has been making the blogospheric rounds:

So what is behind this now concluded investigation into the "mystery" of the "1984" video? It is not quite a scandal, but is it perhaps more than a good “story”? A flap? A kerfuffle? A “controversy?” And if any of these, then what is it about?

Well, the identity of the video's creator is known and as Bauer points out, there are those in the campaign finance reform community who are al agog at the feat of "internet politics" run amok and lacking disclosure.

First, as Brad Smith and others have pointed out, disclosure is not always a good thing in an of itself. Indeed, anonymous political speech has a long history in our nation. (Federalist Paper and Anti-Federalist Papers anyone? What about Ohio v. McIntyre?) But Bauer makes a good point:

Would there have been such a stir, and a hunt for the author, if the ad had been a wholly positive piece about Obama? Of course not: it was "negative", an "attack", requiring the malefactors responsible for it to answer for themselves. Of course, one person’s criticism is another’s "attack". But no matter: by playing on the disapproval of "attacks"—on the perception that a critic who does not speak openly is a coward who evades responsibility—the proponent of disclosure hopes to make the case.

So really the issue is not internet politics but internet politics that smacks of negativity in someone's eyes.

But what makes an attack ad? Who gets to determine? Are anonymous support ads permissible? Sounds an awful lot like the activities of Orwell's Ministry of Truth to me. "1984" indeed.