Originally posted by whodey
However, what intrigues me is the notion that the livelihood of the politician is the grounds for sueing someone. I thought they were "public servants".
You seem to be misrepresenting the story, whodey. He is not suing for "loss of livelihood" as you insinuate over and over again. He is suing for defamation, as I think you well know. The "loss of livelihood" reference merely indicates the seriousness of the charge of defamation. In other words it's not a defamation suit over hurt feelings: it's over what he claims are "malicious lies"
As for your mention of "public servants", indeed Driehaus has addressed this in his comments about his suit: "I have chosen to proceed against the SBA List in federal court because the issue at stake goes beyond the purview of the Ohio Elections Commission [...] As more and more interests are able to anonymously spend unlimited sums of money in attempts to defame public servants and influence our elections, it is imperative that groups such as the SBA List be held to account for their behavior. Lies have consequences."
While I do not agree with Driehaus' course of action, your unnecessarily partisan framing of the story (it gives cause for concern to thoughtful people, whodey, even without using the "loss of livelihood" soundbite to spin it) seemed to me to be disguising the actual nature of the law suit.