I am certain that you guys are well versed in the ways of Republicans in East Texas, the home of Louie Gohmert, Leo Berman, and a bucket of hate about the size of Mongolia.

So nobody was shocked when this sign appeared near Lufkin.

What did kinda bother people is that the sign was anonymous, as is most Republican hate. That goes back to the old hoods over their heads thing and the burning crosses. They are ashamed of what they think. As well they should be.

But, this time is a little different. Some folks are complaining.

And they are even threatening to go to the Texas Ethics Commission. Whoop-te-do. The Texas Ethics Commission needs Viagra just to get to work in the morning and a second dose to pour a cup of office. By then, they are too spent to do anything for the rest of the day. They give outrageous fines to Democrats and awards to Republicans for the same infractions.

But, some floozy chick with a beauty shop and a writ twit on payroll might have a better idea. It’s a clear violation of federal election law.

Pedro Khan, in-house counsel for the Dairy Queen and Dirt Janochek’s Rural Entertainment Promoters, told me this over lunch today.

The billboards violate two different provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

First, the billboards constitute an independent expenditure because they expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office. The Act requires any person (i.e., any individual) who makes an independent expenditure of more than $250 must file a report with the FEC. 2 U.S.C. 434(c). Renting these two billboards for six months clearly costs more than $250. There were are no reports of independent expenditures against President Obama filed with the FEC in July. The person or persons who paid for these billboards have violated 2 U.S.C. 434(c).

Second, because the billboards are independent expenditures, the billboards have to have a disclaimer that states the name and permanent street address, telephone number or World Wide Web address of the person or persons who paid for the billboard and include the statement that the billboard was not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. 2 U.S.C. 441d(a)(3). This provision was designed specifically to prevent what happened here – allowing people to pay for a billboard that urges the public to vote against a federal candidate while remaining anonymous.

As Justice Scalia recently said, if you want to take part in a public debate you have to have some civic courage.

So, when I get home, I am filing against them at the FEC and then daring them to put on their big boy pants and meet me on the courthouse steps in Lufkin, Texas, because I’m a grown girl and I’m not ashamed of what I believe.