Donald Trump has made headlines once again, this time with his legal challenge against the Des Moines Register, its pollster Ann Selzer, and parent company Gannett. Filed on December 16, 2020, the lawsuit accuses these entities of consumer fraud, centering on a poll released just before the November election. This poll, which showed Kamala Harris leading Trump by three points, is claimed by Trump to have misrepresented voter sentiment and interfered with the electoral process.
The crux of Trump’s argument lies within the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act, which is typically used to protect consumers from misleading advertising. Trump asserts, based on this act, the results of the poll were deceptive and intended to sway public opinion against him. He expressed his motivations, stating, "I’m doing this because I feel I have an obligation to..." as he elaborated on his rationale for holding such entities accountable.
Interestingly, Trump won Iowa by more than 13 points, prompting his legal team to label the poll results as "election-interfering fiction." They argue this discrepancy is significant enough to warrant judicial action, marking this suit as part of Trump's pattern of litigation against those he perceives as adversaries.
Legal experts have quickly weighed in, mostly expressing skepticism about the viability of Trump’s claims. Clay Calvert, a media law professor, stated, "The odds of success here are slim to none, but winning in court is not likely the real goal of this lawsuit." This raises concerns about what Trump's intent might be with filing this suit—arguably aimed more at intimidating the press than achieving prosecutorial victory.
Samantha Barbas, another legal expert, remarked, "This is completely far-fetched, in my opinion," contending the application of the consumer fraud law to press-related matters deviates from its intended use. Barbas, who teaches at the University of Iowa College of Law, said the Iowa law was crafted to protect transactions related to goods, not to govern the dissemination of information through journalism.
Despite these critiques, Trump’s attorney, Nicholas A. Klinefeldt, firmly defended the foundational principles underpinning the lawsuit. He asserted, "President Trump’s attempt to assert his ridiculous theories about election interference via a claim under the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act will not stand," emphasizing the First Amendment protections afforded to the press.
This legal skirmish is not Trump’s first foray against media outlets; he has previously filed several lawsuits claiming defamation and false reporting, including against CBS News and ABC News, each case illuminating the tensions between Trump and the media. ABC, for example, settled with Trump for $15 million following allegations concerning wrongful reporting of sexual misconduct claims against him.
Experts have noted how Trump's previous litigation often serves to chill media reporting, instilling fear among outlets wary of potential repercussions from unfavorable coverage. "Subjecting media organizations to the threat of litigation can have a chilling effect,” Barbas elaborated, hinting at the broader impact this pattern may have on journalistic freedom.
Pollster Ann Selzer, who has gained recognition for her accuracy, now finds her reputation targeted within the lawsuit, described as someone who attempted to influence political outcomes through her polling results. Given Selzer’s track record, legal experts suggest utilizing the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act may be unprecedented for complaints against polling and news organizations.
Legal representatives have consistently defended the integrity of their work, and the Des Moines Register has expressed confidence it will prevail against Trump's allegations. "This lawsuit seeks to disrupt and intimidate the press,” Klinefeldt stated plainly, favoring the notion of preserving journalistic independence.
Critics fear this lawsuit may be part of Trump's broader strategy to control the narrative surrounding his presidency and image, demonstrating the lengths to which he might go to retaliate against perceived wrongs from the media.
Whether this lawsuit succeeds or fails remains uncertain, but it undeniably resonates with Trump’s complex relationship with the media overall, reflecting his willingness to engage legal avenues to shape the public dialogue.
The outcome of the legal proceedings could establish significant precedents for the relationship between political figures and the media, potentially impacting how future disputes over reporting are managed legally.
