By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President-elect Trump is suing pollster J. Ann Selzer, The Des Moines Register, and Gannett, alleging violations of the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act due to a pre-election poll showing Kamala Harris with a surprising lead in Iowa. This lawsuit, while unlikely to succeed, is part of Trump’s broader campaign against what he views as left-leaning media coverage. The suit claims the poll’s results constituted election interference, despite the poll’s methodology being unremarkable and Trump ultimately winning Iowa by a significant margin. Legal experts widely condemn the lawsuit as a baseless attack on the First Amendment and a chilling tactic against the press.
Read the original article here
Trump’s lawsuit against the Des Moines Register and a prominent pollster over their final Iowa survey is raising eyebrows, and not just for its unusual nature. The fact that he won the Iowa caucuses decisively makes the lawsuit seem, to many, entirely frivolous. It appears less about seeking legal recourse and more about silencing dissent.
The sheer pettiness of the action is fueling widespread outrage. Many are questioning what possible damages Trump could claim; he won the election, making the accuracy of the poll largely irrelevant. Even if the poll contained inaccuracies, it’s hard to see how that translates into actual harm for the winner.
The underlying motivation seems to be intimidation. This lawsuit, following a similar action against ABC News (which quickly settled), is perceived as a chilling effect on critical reporting. The implication is that any media outlet questioning or criticizing Trump risks facing costly and time-consuming litigation. This strategy of using lawsuits to stifle dissent is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes, and its deployment by a political figure in a democratic nation is deeply concerning.
The timing of this legal action also warrants attention. Trump’s victory in Iowa was undeniable, making the lawsuit’s purpose even more opaque. This suggests the true intent lies in sending a message of dominance and intolerance of criticism. The overall picture strongly points towards a calculated effort to control the narrative and punish those who challenge his authority, regardless of the merits of the case.
This move is not just about this particular poll. It represents a broader pattern of Trump leveraging his resources and influence to attack anyone who criticizes him. It’s a blatant attempt to control the information environment and suppress dissenting voices. This should be viewed as a serious threat to freedom of the press and open discourse.
Critics see this as a prime example of a SLAPP suit – a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation – designed not to win in court but to discourage others from expressing negative opinions. The high cost and time involved in defending such a suit can be financially crippling, even if the lawsuit is eventually dismissed. This is precisely the intimidation that such suits are intended to achieve.
Furthermore, the potential implications for the American justice system are alarming. The ability of wealthy individuals to use the legal system as a weapon to silence critics is a serious threat to democratic values. This is a misuse of the legal system for political aims, turning a tool of justice into a tool of intimidation.
The legal merits of the case are dubious at best. The poll in question, while perhaps flawed, did not appear to intentionally mislead or defame Trump. The fact that he won the Iowa caucuses handily undermines any claim of significant harm. Many legal experts believe the suit is fundamentally weak and unlikely to succeed on its merits.
However, the case is not about a winning strategy. It’s about wielding power. It’s about creating a climate of fear and self-censorship. It’s about sending a clear message: challenge Trump, and face the consequences. The cost of this lawsuit for the Des Moines Register could be substantial, regardless of the final outcome.
Ultimately, this lawsuit reveals a troubling trend. It is a clear attack on freedom of speech and a blatant attempt to silence critics. The question is not whether the lawsuit will be successful, but whether it will achieve its true, more sinister goal: a chilling effect on the press and any individual who dares to challenge the authority of a powerful individual. The sheer audacity and perceived pettiness of the action underscores a deep-seated need for control and an intolerance of dissenting opinions.