Rep. Lauren Boebert suffered a severe setback when a federal magistrate judge in Colorado gave the green light for a lawsuit against her to proceed, affirming certain claims made by the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit, spearheaded by political activist David Wheeler of North Carolina and the influential super PAC American Muckrakers, alleges that Boebert launched a campaign of “maliciously false statements” during her 2022 reelection bid. Boebert’s alleged weapon? Repeated attacks aimed at discrediting Wheeler and the PAC for their damning revelations about her.
Boebert’s legal maneuvering hit a roadblock when her attempt to have the case dismissed under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP law, a shield for free speech, was rebuffed.
In a groundbreaking recommendation, U.S. Magistrate Judge Kathryn A. Starnella suggested that Boebert could face repercussions for her intimidation tactics, particularly her threats to sue American Muckrakers donors. The ruling left Boebert exposed for her aggressive attempts to silence critics.
“Defendant’s threats to sue Plaintiffs’ sponsors and donors are unprotected because they were neither made in good faith nor in serious contemplation of litigation,” the judge wrote. “While Defendant has an interest in protecting her reputation, even through litigation, Plaintiffs’ donors and sponsors have a weightier interest in exercising their First Amendment right to engage in political speech (in the form of financial donations to political action committees) without fear of retaliation.”
Boebert’s tactics were not subtle. She unleashed a barrage of legal threats against anyone associated with American Muckrakers, warning of severe consequences for dissenters. The message was clear: challenge Boebert at your peril.
Despite Boebert’s bluster, she failed to follow through on her legal threats. However, the damage was done. Wheeler revealed that Boebert’s intimidation tactics led to a staggering 92% drop in donations to American Muckrakers. It was a calculated move aimed at stifling dissent and quashing opposition.
Starnella’s scathing rebuke of Boebert’s actions reverberated through the courtroom. She unequivocally denounced Boebert’s attempts to muzzle critics, reaffirming the fundamental right to political speech. In a blistering assessment, Starnella declared that Boebert’s actions held no place in a society that cherishes free expression and transparency.
“The Court finds no social value in allowing elected officials to silence speech they dislike by threatening gadfly journalists’ donors, who have not themselves engaged in any unlawful or tortious activity,” Starnella wrote.
