If Dean Barkley ever again runs for higher office, it can’t be on a platform of reducing frivolous lawsuits.

Barkley, who now works for Phil Villaume’s law firm, is the rainmaker behind the Stop The Petters Scam Foundation’s lawsuit against the Star Tribune. Barkley and Villaume argue that the Strib breached an oral contract when it cancelled the Foundation’s 15-part ad series attacking the disposition of convicted Ponzi schemer Tom Petters’ assets.

The suit, filed Dec. 17, is a newsie’s feast, alleging that the Strib was pressured by “as yet unknown powerful interests” (listed as John Does 1-30) to dump the ad campaign, "contrary to [the Strib's] First Amendment obligation to seek and report the truth of important public policy issues ..."

The Foundation cites several grounds for damages, including “the loss of $62,000 of its advertising money previously paid to the Star Tribune and an additional $15,000 for shifting the final six ads to the Pioneer Press. The Foundation asserts that the Strib’s decision interrupted plans to publicize a documentary that would air on the four local network TV stations, and damaged the nonprofit’s “goodwill, reputation and credibility.”

My b.s. alarm started ringing early and hasn’t really stopped. In a statement, Strib spokesman Ben Taylor immediately asserted “we fully refunded the money for the ads — even for the ones that had already run,” which Bill Hillsman, the North Woods Advertising pro behind the Foundation’s campaign and Barkley’s political pal, confirms. So much for those damages.

Furthermore, the Strib and Hillsman agree that North Woods, which regularly places political ads in the paper, received the Strib’s standard advocacy advertising application, which states unequivocally “that Publisher reserves the right to review each advertisement submitted for publication, to reject any advertisement for any reason ... [and] that no advertisement is ‘accepted’ for publication unless and until it is published.”

Hillsman says the form was sent “up the food chain” but wasn’t signed. He complains that the Strib never mentioned the application again until it came time to pull the ads. But Paul Hannah, who represents the Pioneer Press among many other media clients, says that doesn’t matter. “They’re trying to do a 'gotcha,'" he says of the Foundation, "that [the Star Tribune] didn’t dot the i’s and cross the t’s. But the court will find it reasonable to assume, since [North Woods] got the contract and has done advocacy ads in the past, that they knew the Star Tribune had a policy. The ultimate answer is, ‘It’s our newspaper.”

Then there’s the rather florid invocation of the Constitution. According to Villaume, “We take the position that once the paper agreed to print the ads, the Foundation’s First Amendment rights kicked into play. That after that, the newspaper can’t arbitrarily strike ads due to the interference of third persons.”

Says Hannah, “That’s a really interesting theory, but it’s wrong.”

A First Amendment refresher: it doesn’t constrain a private business like the Strib, it constrains government. (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”)

Hannah: “I’ve know Phil Villaume for many years as a practicing attorney, and I think the world of Phil, but that Constitutional argument is such a non-starter. I’m shocked he would raise it.”

(Villaume acknowledged he isn’t a Constitutional lawyer, and referred me to the suit’s co-counsel, Beverly Hills lawyer Anthony Michael Glassman. Glassman did not return calls for comment.)

As for the Foundation’s claim of reputational damage, Hannah says, “You don’t get recovery for a hurt reputation, you get recovery for libel, and there’s no libel here.”

On that score, Hannah notes one reason why media outlets are very careful about publishing controversial ads. The famous 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan case that established the “actual malice” libel standard was based on an ad, not a story. This is one reason that newspapers will accept dubious ads about Amish craftsfolk building electric heaters, but not some kinds of issue advocacy, especially ones that allege a "second fraud."

Barkley, Villaume and Hillsman assert the ad series — which questions the actions of Sen. Amy Klobuchar, former Sen. Norm Coleman, and former gubernatorial candidate and Petters court-appointed receiver Doug Kelley — are completely truthful, based on reporting by former Chicago Sun-Times political editor James Merriner. And of course, the Pioneer Press showed a stiffer spine than its bigger rival by picking up the final six ads. But Hannah asserts the Strib is well within its rights as a business to err on the side of caution.

There may be a very interesting tale of why the Strib dropped the Petters ads. Taylor’s statement says there was no third-party interference, while Hillsman contends a Strib official told him the ads upset “some people.” Hillsman says Strib Senior Vice President for Advertising David Walsh told him management was “squeamish” about continuing the campaign. Walsh was not made available due to pending litigation, but Barkley says he will use the court case to force Strib officials to disclose who complained.

Still, even if powerful forces cranked on the Strib to pipe down about Petters — a story the paper covered aggressively, if not to the satisfaction of Foundation financier and Petters investor Thane Ritchie — that’s a beef that should be kept out of court.  

In an era where media organizations have less money, litigation by deep-pocketed financiers becomes an even bigger threat to journalistic independence. Yes, there will be cases of real abuse that should be heard, but this isn’t one. This legal fight seems like an extension of Hillsman’s p.r. strategy, though he denies it.

Barkley says Hennepin County District Judge Tanya Bransford has been assigned the case, and the Strib has 30 days to answer the complaint. Hopefully, the newspaper will move quickly to have the case tossed out of court, and Bransford will agree.