Ted Olson and David Boies in Lucrative Gay Marriage Legal Deal
Headlines blare that Olson and Boies are joined in a great ideological quest for freedom and equality. Wait! These are some of the best known Supreme Court advocates in the country. They aren't working for free. This is a practical union, and, like most arranged marriages, it must cement a union of great financial propriety. by Paul Benedict
(libertarian)
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
In 2000 Olson aided President Elect George Bush while David Boies argued for Gore. Each boldly represented hanging chads before the highest court in the land. Though the value of a chit of paper clinging desperately to parts of a round hole seems to be without party affiliation, some members of the gay community have wondered aloud whether or not Mr. Olson could be trusted at all. Perhaps as a sign of good will for having worked for Reagan and Bush and for being involved in the Defense of Marriage Act passed under President Clinton, Olson contritely mentioned that his firm is contributing resources pro-bono.
All sincerity aside, following the money is entertaining if not mildly disturbing. What's disturbing is that neither Olson nor Boies were inclined to mention their funding sources. The American Foundation for Equal Rights, the organization that joined each man in this miraculous union of legal talent, came into existence virtually on the day these two announced their wedding of interests in filing for an appeal and an injunction in federal court. Not a sponsor, board member, organizational affiliation, or media contact was available online for this very high profile, highly idealistic, altruistic and publically concerned organization. Seeming unnamed funding sources can tie up taxpayer money and high court dockets endlessly without revealing any information publically. Maybe the Red Chinese are funding the whole thing just to get their jollies on U-tube. What else are they going to do with all those American dollars they've squirreled away --buy Hummer? Only in America.
The entertaining part is the seemingly innocuous involvement in a one time Clinton fundraiser, Chadd Griffin, who registered the American Foundation for Equal Rights website and serves as AFER's president. Finally, on May 27th one of AFER's press releases finally named Griffin/Schake as a press contact, but still no donars were forthcoming.
Chad himself has made the maximum legal donations to the appropriate Democratic candidates, but he is plainly not the major funding source. It's generally assumed that Olson commands over $1,000 an hour for Supreme Court work. Similar contributions from Chad on an annual basis won't cover even the first day of this appeal. Griffin, though, has connections. He was named "man of the year" for being the executive producer (the financer, or representative for the financer) of Outrage, a gay rights sensitive movie demanding gay politicians openly oppose Proposition 8. He was also able to tap Brad Pitt and Steve Bling for over a half a million dollars to oppose Proposition 8. All of this is mildly entertaining because of the way Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs floundered when questioned about the President's positions on gay marriage. Is all of this a palace coup in which Hillary Clinton seeks to score points with Democratic insiders and fundraisers by highlighting Obama's unwillingness to lead in the arena of gay marriage?
That there are some sort of political machinations involved is evident because the ACLU and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the two primary legal groups involved in "defending gay rights," were left out of the loop. The Democratic side of the conspiracy is obvious and entertaining, but the secrecy may devolve from the right. Dick Cheney recently told Fox News, while daughter Liz sat smiling, that he wants Liz to embark upon a career in politics. Seeing gay marriage become "constitutional" could remove barriers from Liz, if her politics are like her fathers. Cheney's view on gay marriage has been influenced by his youngest daughter Mary who is openly gay.
Californians who believe sane government must recognize the meaning of words fundamental to its laws: words like life, liberty, honesty, property, contract and, yes, marriage had Jerry Brown representing them before the California Supreme Court on Proposition 22. Hence, if other Californians fear that a fifth columnist lawyer has invaded their ranks to lose the case, it is understandable. For them the secrecy behind Boies and Olson's money must be especially troubling.
There are things that people should not do for money, even lawyers. It is one thing to send men and women into harm's way in far off lands because you would do anything to protect your family. America's leaders ought to be at least as committed to this country as were its founding fathers. They should be willing to pledge their lown ives, their own fortunes, and their sacred honor for this land, before sending men to war. Still, lesser men who seek only to protect their own lives, fortunes, and family name can still make sound decisions for this land. On the other hand, if Olson advocates a case that he knows will empower courts distant from the people to micro manage even the definition of the most natural of our relationships and the one most pivotal for the future of a free people, and if he advocates such for money alone, he should be more than ashamed.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 1
thumb so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Paul Benedict only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Paul Benedict is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I have a simple proposition for Mr. Benedict. Since he is so insistent on excluding me and people like me from his government programs, then he should also be more than happy to exclude me from taxation for those programs, right?
Oh, but then who will exist to be the "taxed" rather than the beneficiaries in that case?
Positioning this sort of government-knows-best dreck as "libertarian" is the height of silliness. For while Benefict makes the unsubstantiated claim that Olson and Boies must be making a fortune (i.e. "it's all about money"), he ignores the fact that he himself advocates a government redistribution of money from those he hates (gays and lesbians) to those who are like him.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2009-09-09 06:36:23
Brian,
Sorry about your condition, but I don't hate you for it... The condition? Plain old kookiness... Redistribution? Me? Flat out kooky.
I advocate nothing; however, I consistently warn that any human (no matter their sexual orientation) that cannot properly identify what a marriage is is worse than kooky and that a govenrment that has this problem is worse than the tyrants of Rome (one of whom was so kooky he named his favorite war horse procounsel).
Oh, any lawyer or politician that advocates kooky positions when they are obviously not kooky... Yep, follow the money. What else can join legal warriors from every strip on tripe like open border policies.
To be a libertarian does not mean you must be a kook.
I have no comment about the content of the article. Â It is void of content. Â If it seeks tell from where or whom the money comes, it does not. Â Blind speculation would be less careless. Â This incoherent string of paragraphs and sentences taught me nothing. Â An idea won't simply express itself because it is written. Â The author must tow the line. Â This article is a waste of my bandwidth. Â I had hoped to learn something. Â Reading this actually devolved my understanding of the topic, if there was one.
Posted By: Paul Benedict
Date: 2010-01-19 13:37:27
Hi Charlee,
Not sure you got the point... The point is that information on the funding was pretty hard to locate, at least in June 2009. Funding for appeals of public policy should be an open book, just as the deals in congress on healthcare should indeed be on CSPAN.
