This:
Lahut’s article begins as follows:
So there is no question about the source of the banner and signs. Stated slight differently, as a practical matter the banner and signs are NOT anonymous political advertising.
Lahut’s article states:
To cut to the chase, even though the entire political world knows the source of the signs … that is, even though there is no anonymity … Buckley has filed a complaint under a statute intended to prevent anonymous political advertising.
That’s really stupid. And really a waste of taxpayer money.
The reporter, however, never asks Buckley why he is fling a complaint about anonymous political advertising when there is no anonymity. He does however devote much of the article to the Democrats’ “outrage” at being compared to Nazis.
Buckley filing a compliant about anonymous political advertising when he and everyone involved knows the source of the banner and signs in question is a cheap political stunt. The reporter not questioning Buckley’s abuse of the statute and allowing the Democrats to rant about the content of the signs but not asking the NHFC to respond to that is FakeNews.