False Ads: There Oughtta
Be A Law! Or -- Maybe Not.
By Brooks Jackson 06.03.2004 from www.factcheck.org
Here's a fact that may surprise you: candidates have a legal right to lie
to voters just about as much as they want.
That comes as a shock to many voters. After all, consumers have been protected
for decades from false ads for commercial products. Shouldn't there
be "truth-in-advertising" laws to protect voters , too?
Turns out, that's a tougher question than you might imagine.
For one thing, the First Amendment to the US Constitution says "Congress
shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech," and that applies
to candidates for office especially. And secondly, in the few states that have
tried laws against false political ads, they haven't been very effective.
Bogus Psychics & Twirling Ballerina Dolls
Laws protecting consumers from false advertising of products are enforced pretty
vigorously. For example, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took action in
2002 to protect the public from the self-proclaimed psychic "Miss Cleo,"
whom the FTC said promised free readings over the phone and then socked her
gullible clients with enormous telephone charges. The FTC even forced
a toy company a while back to stop running ads showing its "Bouncin'
Kid Ballerina Kid" doll standing alone and twirling gracefully without human
assistance, which the FTC said was video hokum.
Federal Communications Act (US Code: Title 47, Sec. 315. - Candidates
for public office)
(a) . . . If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate
for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities
to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station:
Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material
broadcast under the provisions of this section.
But there's no such truth-in-advertising law governing federal candidates. They
can legally lie about almost anything they want. In fact, the Federal
Comunications Act even requires broadcasters who run candidate ads to show
them uncensored, even if the broadcasters believe their content to be
offensive or false.
This is taken very seriously. In a 1972 case, the Federal Communications Commission
forced stations in Atlanta, GA to accept a paid political ad from JB
Stoner -- a self-proclaimed "white racist" running for the U.S. Senate
on the National States Rights party ticket. The NAACP objected to Stoner's
ad because it said the "main reason why niggers want integration is because
niggers want our white women." The FCC sided with Stoner, citing freedom
of speech decisions of the Supreme Court.
Stations can reject ads for any reason from political groups other than candidates.
And they may reject ads from all candidates for a given office. But if
they take ads from one candidate they can't legally refuse ads from opponents,
except for technical reasons (such as being too long or short to fit standard
commercial breaks, or if the recording quality is poor) or if they are "obscene."
Rejecting a candidate's ad because it's false is simply not allowed.
So what gives? Surely the public stands to suffer more damage from a presidential
candidate lying about his opponent than from a bogus psychic. Isn't the process
of choosing the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet a more important
matter than whether some doll really does what the TV ads show?
Yes. But . . .The First Amendment
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.
For one thing, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech poses a big obstacle
to enacting or enforcing such laws -- which it should. The very idea of self-government
rests on the idea that voters -- given enough uncensored information -- can best
decide who should be in power and who should not. So free speech applies
first and foremost to candidates. As the US Supreme Court said unanimously in
a 1971 libel case , "it can hardly be doubted that the constitutional
guarantee (of free speech) has its fullest and most urgent application precisely
to the conduct of campaigns for political office."
So states have found it hard to enact laws against false political advertising,
and even harder to make them work.
Minnesota: The Case of the Furloughed Rapist
Example: In a 1994 House race in Minnesota, Republican candidate Tad Jude ran
a emotion-packed ad against Democrat William Luther in the final weekend of the
race.
It was reminiscent of the notorious "Willie Horton" ads run against
Democratic Presidential Candidate Michael Dukakis in the 1988 Presidential election.
In the ad, Jude cited the case of a woman and two daughters who were kidnapped
and raped repeatedly over two days by a man who had been released from prison
on a furlough.
The False Ad
That Couldn't Be Outlawed
Announcer: In 1990, a Minnesota woman and her two daughters were abducted and
repeatedly raped over a two-day ordeal. Despite two prior convictions, the
perpetrator, Daniel Patten, was out of prison on a weekend furlough.
Patten may never have been released and this crime never committed had
legislation authored by Tad Jude been enacted. But Jude's bill was stopped
by Bill Luther and his liberal friends in the Minnesota Senate.
Bill Luther's willingness to set violent criminals free is putting every
woman in Minnesota in danger. Sending him to Congress would be a crime.
Jude's ad claimed the rapist "never would have been released and this
crime never committed" if Democrat Luther, a state senator, had not
blocked a bill sponsored by Republican Jude, who was also a state senator. "Sending
(Luther) to Congress would be a crime," it concluded.
The ad was false. Even if Jude's proposed legislation had been enacted it
could not possibly have prevented the crime it described.
Reason: Jude's bill would have applied only to persons imprisoned for offenses
committed on or after August 1, 1987, and the convict mentioned in the ad had
been sentenced in 1983.
Jude lost the election, but the ad may have had an effect. His losing margin was
only 549 votes out of more than 200,000 cast.
It was Jude's misfortune, however, to live in one of the very few states
that outlaws false political advertising. A special prosecutor presented
the case to a grand jury, which indicted Jude and his campaign manager. A conviction
could have led to a year in jail and a $3,000 fine.
Problems With Enforcement
The trial judge later threw the case out, however, and the Minnesota Court
of Appeals refused to reinstate the indictment against Jude. In its opinion,
the appeals court said that the Minnesota law was too broad, allowing someone
to be charged for having only "reason to believe" that an ad they helped
prepare was false. The court said that US Supreme Court rulings required a higher
standard: evidence of "actual malice."
To convict, prosecutors would have to prove Jude either knew the ad was false,
or acted with "reckless disregard" for whether it was true or not. That
would have been a tough job; Jude had testified to the grand jury that he
was under the false impression that the ad was true, that the rapist named
in the ad had been convicted later of a second offense that would
have made him subject to the legislation he had proposed. So Jude went free
and, in fact, ran against Luther a second time in 1996. This time Luther won with
nearly 56% of the vote.
This case exposes two problems with relying on truth-in-advertising laws to protect
voters from campaign falsehoods. First, prosecutors can't move quickly enough
to cure the damage caused by a last-minute, false attack. Jude wasn't indicted
until more than a year after the election that he almost won. And second, under
the "actual malice" standard a candidate could lie profusely in ads
and still get away with it by claiming he or she thought the ads were true,
so long as no convincing evidence surfaced to the contrary.
Washington State: The Case of the Killer Ophthalmologists
Washington state also ran into problems trying to enforce its own truth-in-political-advertising
law after a 1991 ballot referendum fight. At issue was a proposed "death
with dignity" law. A group opposed to it, the "119 Vote No! Committee,"
issued a leaflet saying that if the proposal passed "It would let doctors
end patients' lives without benefit of safeguards . . . your eye doctor could
kill you."
The ballot proposition failed, and the state's Public Disclosure Commission brought
an action charging the 119 Committee with violating the state's law against false
political advertising. The commission said the proposal did contain standards
and it was false to say it would open the door to killer ophthalmologists. But
the trial court dismissed the charges in this case, too, and the Washington
State Supreme Court later struck down the law under which the committee had been
charged.
The Supreme Court's majority opinion questioned whether state government officials
had any right to substitute their judgment for that of the voters in matters of
political speech. Quoting earlier court opinions, it said:
Washington State Supreme Court: Instead of relying on the State to silence false
political speech, the First Amendment requires our dependence on even more speech
to bring forth truth. . . . The First Amendment exists precisely to
protect against laws such as (the Washington state truth-in-advertising law) which
suppress ideas and inhibit free discussion of governmental affairs.
The Washington court wasn't unanimous. A judge who dissented complained that the
majority had become "the first court in the history of the Republic to declare
First Amendment protection for calculated lies," and said his fellow judges
were "shockingly oblivious to the increasing nastiness of modern political
campaigns."
At least one other state is currently enforcing its own law against bogus campaign
ads. But voters shouldn't take much comfort from that, as the following case study
shows.
Ohio: The Case of the Lying Treasurer
Ohio's law has been tested in the courts and survived, and the Ohio Elections
Commission looks into 30 to 40 complaints each year, according to its executive
director Philip C. Richter.
Taft's False Ad: 1998
Announcer: The men and women of law enforcement -- they want a governor who
is tough on crime. Ohio's police have endorsed Bob Taft for Governor -- and rejected
Lee Fisher.
Our law officers back Bob Taft to expand Ohio's drug courts and hold violent juveniles
more accountable.
And Lee Fisher? As Attorney General, Fisher cut crime-fighting employees by 15%.
While increasing his PR budget to $1 million
Bob Taft for Governor. That's how it gets done.
And the seven-member, bipartisan Elections Commission takes its job seriously,
as demonstrated in a 1998 case involving a false TV commercial run by the Republican
candidate for governor, Bob Taft, against his Democratic opponent, Lee Fisher.
The ad appeared September 18. Fisher complained to the commission, which held
hearings and decided the matter less than a month after the ad first aired --
astonishing speed to anyone familiar with the usual pace of election-law enforcement.
Richter told FactCheck.org that the commission wanted to decide the matter before
voters went to the polls, and it met that deadline with more than two weeks to
spare.
On Oct. 16 the commission announced its decision. By what it called
"clear and convincing evidence" it ruled that the Taft ad violated Ohio's
law against false statements. The ad claimed Fisher, who had been the state's
attorney general, "cut crime-fighting employees by 15%," when in fact
the number of credentialed investigators actually increased from 214 to 231 during
his four-year tenure. Also, the Taft ad claimed "Ohio's police have endorsed
Bob Taft . . . and rejected Lee Fisher." Actually, the state's Fraternal
Order of Police had been split over its endorsement of Taft, and didn't represent
all of "Ohio's police" in any event.
But Taft paid no real penalty for the false ad, except for some unfavorable publicity.
The Elections Commission issued only a letter of reprimand -- to Taft's campaign
treasurer and his campaign organization. The commission has no power to levy fines.
In rare cases it forwards complaints to a prosecutor for possible criminal proceedings,
but didn't do that in the Taft case. Taft went on to win the election
easily. He's still governor.
Contrast this nearly toothless Ohio law with what the Federal Trade
Commission was able to extract from Miss Cleo, who agreed to pay a $5 million
penalty to the government and also to give up claims of more than $500
million (yes, half a billion dollars) against her former "clients."
"Convicted of Lying?"
And as if to underscore the futility of using government to regulate truth in
politics, The AP quoted Fisher's campaign manager Alan Melamed as saying after
the Elections Commission decision was announced: "Bob Taft has found his
place in history. . . . He's the first candidate for governor to be convicted
of lying." That itself was a false statement. The commission specifically
rejected Fisher's complaints against Taft personally, and in any case has no power
to "convict," a word that implies criminal violations.
And so it goes. All this should tell voters that -- legally -- it's pretty much
up to them to sort out who's lying and who's not in a political campaign. Nobody
said Democracy was supposed to be easy.
It is of course the job of news organizations to assist; that's why the First
Amendment guarantees a free press as well as free speech. We at FactCheck.org
try hard to help. But on election day, it's up to you.
Sources:
Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell, The Interplay of Influence:
News, Advertising, Politics, and the Mass Media, Fifth Edition, Wadsworth/Thomas
Learning (Belmont, CA) 2001: 304-307.
"FCC Won't Block Racist Ad in South," The New York Times 4 Aug 1972:
37.
U.S. Supreme Court, Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265 (1971).
State of Minnesota Court of Appeals, "State of Minnesota v. Thaddeus Victor
Jude," C5-96-509 Opinion filed 15 Oct 1996.
Randy Furst, "Jude indicted by grand jury for anti-Luther campaign ad; Prosecutors
say he knew ad was false," Star Tribune (Minneapolis), 29 Nov 1995: A1.
Randy Furst and Jim Parsons, "Charges against Jude are dismissed; Political
ads law unconstitutional," Star Tribune (Minneapolis), 2 March 1996: 1A.
Supreme Court of Washington State, "State of Washington v. 199 No! Committee,"
957 P.2d 691, 11 June 1998.
Paul Souhrada, "Elections commission says Taft ad was misleading," The
Associated Press , 16 Oct. 1998.
Mary Beth Lane and Benjamin Marrison, "Taft Commercial Ruled Untruthful;
Commission Says Data On Fisher Was Misused," Cleveland Plain Dealer, 17 Oct.
1998: 4b.
Randy Ludlow, "Taft camp scolded for TV ad," Cincinnati Post , 17 Oct
1998.