I did a casual search to see what is the case law on political cybersquatting. From these and other sites, I gather that just using the name is a 50-50 proposition. If the candidate has the site name VoteEdJones.org and someone grabs ElectEdJones.org it may or may not result in a lost case for the squatter, depending on what they do with the name. However, grabbing the actual site name with just a different suffix like ".com" instead of ".org" as Griffith did, and actually using it against the candidate as was originally done is pretty much a lost case for the squatter, who will likely pay the litigant's full legal costs and additional penalties up to $100K per domain name. This is particularly in California which has it's own state law in addition to the federal statute (ACPA) which most articles referred to.
1. C|Net News http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-894311.html
"So far, rulings have been mixed on whether people have the right to shut down unauthorized Web sites that use their names in the address. Actress Julia Roberts and vocalist Madonna have won the rights to their names, but New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and President George W. Bush have not.
"Filing an action under the ACPA may also be appropriate for consideration if immediate court intervention is needed due to the highly objectionable nature of a particular website.
"In a civil action brought under the “cyberpiracy protection for individuals” section of the ACPA, a U.S. federal court is empowered to order the transfer or cancellation of the domain name as well as costs and attorney’s fees."