I saw these TV commercials last week attacking Oklahoma Insurance Commissioner Kim Holland, but not mentioning her name - just using her silhouette. It struck me as pretty sleazy, and apparently I'm not alone. From the Oklahoman:

The 30-second ad never names Holland, a Tulsa Democrat appointed by Gov. Brad Henry. She replaced Carroll Fisher, who quit during a scandal.

It does feature silhouettes of her.

"The good ol' boy Democrat system in Oklahoma has made it illegal for us to tell you this politician's name," the ad says. "She's broken the public trust, but we can't tell you who she is. Thousands upon thousands of out-of-state insurance industry dollars flowing into her office as if it were up for sale ... The very insurance industry she is supposed to regulate and keep from raising our rates."

The ad then directs viewers to a Web site, OklahomaSecrets.com, which does name Holland. Just the Facts America alleges on the Web site she is unqualified, unprofessional and unethical.

Holland is asking TV stations not to run the ad. Why?

Holland told supporters in a letter Friday that the ad is a "negative, unethical attack." Her attorney, Richard Mildren, told stations the ad is illegal because the group did not register with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission.

…Marilyn Hughes, executive director of the Oklahoma Ethics Commission, has heard about the controversy.

"The silhouette, plus several things they say, you could only conclude it was the insurance commissioner currently," she said. "What other candidate in Oklahoma could it possibly be?"

She said any group running a widespread ad clearly identifying a candidate this close to the election must report what it spent on the ads within 24 hours if it spent at least $5,000. The group also must report who its donors are and cannot use corporate donations.

Just the Facts America has made no report to the Ethics Commission.

The group itself, of course, claims there's nothing wrong with the ad:

A new Texas-based group, Just the Facts America, spent about $100,000 for the ad that began running Friday. Its high-profile Washington attorney, Benjamin Ginsberg, told stations the ad is legal and protected by the First Amendment.

"Your station should not fall victim to her bullying," Ginsberg wrote.

Some stations still were running the ad Tuesday after checking with attorneys. It was unclear whether any stopped.

…Ginsberg, who represented President Bush's re-election campaign for a time, called the ad part of an ongoing educational effort. He told the stations it was legal because it never clearly identifies Holland.

High-profile attorney? Represented President Bush's re-election campaign "for a time?" Where have I heard this before, and what did the Oklahoman leave out?

Oh, yeah:

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A legal adviser to the Bush-Cheney campaign resigned Wednesday after revealing that he had also advised the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the 527 group that has launched a campaign to discredit Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's military record.

A campaign official told CNN that Benjamin Ginsberg advised the group a few months ago at the same time he was working with the Bush-Cheney campaign.

Campaign adviser Terry Holt told CNN that the Bush-Cheney campaign learned Tuesday of Ginsberg's double duty.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a so-called 527 -- named after the federal provision that makes such organizations tax exempt and allows them to accept unlimited donations.

527 groups are not allowed to coordinate their efforts with campaigns. When Kerry's campaign received a boost from non-coordinated 527 efforts a few months befor the Swift Boating, the Bush campaign filed complaints alleging coordination in an attempt to get a court to make them stop. (It failed.) When the Kerry campaign filed similar complaints pointing out real coordination - like Ginsberg being paid by the Bush campaign while also working for the Swift Boat 527 - the Bush campaign called it "frivolous and false."

Small wonder that Kim Holland thinks Ginsberg would be up to his old tricks and coordinating with her opponent, who not only denies it, but accuses Holland herself of doing it:

Rep. Bill Case, the Republican candidate for insurance commissioner, said, "I am running a positive campaign and have no affiliation or knowledge of the organization that is in question here. I deeply resent her baseless accusation that I am 'behind these ads,' in her latest fund-raising letter. Honestly, for all I know, she created this boogie man as a fund-raising tool."

Remember my rule #1 of Republican attacks: whatever they accuse the Democrats of doing is exactly what they are doing themselves, or would have if they'd been able. (The real reason they're accusing Democrats of holding these Mark Foley letters for years to release them right now is because if they'd had such information about a Democrat, that's exactly what they would have done. Except they would have released it in October 2004 for maximum impact, not October 2006.)

When Republicans accuse Democrats of lying about military service, it's because the Republicans involved are doing exactly that. When they accuse Democrats of corruption, it's because they are corrupt. It's proven true for well over a decade - the most vicious GOP attacks on Democrats are for things the GOP is itself doing. (Consider the most recent: thrice-divorced Newt Gingrich criticizing Nancy Pelosi's "family values," when Pelosi has been married for 25 years to the same man and has five children and several grandchildren.)

I don't really have a dog in this hunt; Republicans have proven themselves incapable of running statewide agencies since they want to sell out to the industries they're supposed to govern (cough Brenda Reneau cough), and the fact that a GOP group is accusing Kim Holland of that makes me feel pretty sure that the group involved, at least, thinks Case has every intention of letting the industry run his office (see rule #1 above). But Holland was an appointment to replace Carroll Fisher (D-State Pen), who didn't exactly do much good for his party or, more importantly, for the state.

Case didn't seem to be a nutjob - conservative Michael Bates reports that Case "was nominated for the Oklahoma Conservative PAC's RINO (Republican in Name Only) award every year for the last five, winning once." But if a 527 group is that desperate to see him in office and Holland out, something bad is afoot. And if the insurance industry was really so eager to see Holland returned to office, how come their 527 isn't running ads to support her?

No, no, nothing good can come from the national 527 illegal coordinator poster boy sitting in Texas and DC making ads that he hopes barely skirt Oklahoma's ethics in campaigning law. I have no great brief for Holland, but this is a huge mark against those who oppose her, and smacks somewhat of desperation in a race to which no one was paying much attention. Even if Case is not involved, some big money clearly wants Holland out.

Update: This was the lead story on tonight's Oklahoma News Report on OETA, too, and they also mentioned something in the Oklahoman article that I left out:

There is absolutely no legal problem with this attack ad, even if it explicitly names Kim Holland, as long as it follows campaign finance law. All the shadowy 527 group behind this has to do is file a statement with the Oklahoma Ethics Commission (three Republicans, two Democrats) within 24 hours of the ad's first airing, identifying how much it spent on the ads if the total is greater than #$5000. But that's not why this group is staying in the shadows. As the Oklahoman article said:

The group also must report who its donors are and cannot use corporate donations.

That's what "Just The Facts America" and attorney Ben Ginsberg are trying to avoid - identifying where the money comes from, probably because it's from an insurance corporation, which is barred from buying political ads under long-standing state campaign laws. That's why they're grasping for ways to attack Holland while still claiming they're not "identifying a candidate," because identifying a candidate triggers reporting requirements that reveal the group's donors.

If those donors include any corporations, and the ads identify a candidate, then it's violated campaign finance law. The state GOP felt that was enough reason to chase David Walters out of office in favor of The Senate's Most Documented Moron, so it'll be fun to see if the same people think conservative groups should also have to obey the law.