Campaign Finance Reform - Maybe; Campaign Behavior Reform - Absolutely
Guy T. Sturino
January 22, 2007
With the Supreme Courts upcoming review of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform which tries to keep people who are outside of a candidate’s campaign out of the electoral process, maybe it’s time to reflect on a different approach. Let’s face it, there is no law that will ever stop rumors, and there is no way to stop the press from reporting them. So, like the famous “swift-boat” ads, and the “caught red handed” ads, and the outrageously racial ads in Tennessee, stuff is going to happen. The question is, is it libel, and what do we do when it is.
In a nation that honors free speech, a lie in court will put you in jail. In a predominantly Christian nation that cites “Thou shall not bear false witness,” as one of its most precious precepts, slander or libel of a candidate for elected office should do the same. The problem we have is that the courts take too long to be of value during a campaign. That condition could be addressed with a special court to address candidates’ charges of slander or libel against each other or any third party. In the case of slander and libel of persons running for elected office, these should be criminal offenses with punishments equal to the destruction they cause to the electoral process. Such a court would be in session 24-7 in the months before a national election.
When charges are brought, the premise of such a hearing would be simple. The person or group charged with slander must immediately display the evidence on which any questionable statements were based, and unequivocal proof that the information distributed about a candidate was true and in proper context, or go directly to jail and pay for the distribution of ads in all of the places where the lie was presented which; 1) admit to the deception and 2) present the truth as determined by the court. If we value our electoral process, the jail time won’t be short, and the cost of corrective ads will come directly and only from the guilty party or parties.
Now to put the shoe on the other foot. The person charging slander or libel should not be able to do so risk free. That would only fill the court with frivolous gestures so that an opposing ad could say that so-and-so was charged. In order to reduce the likelihood of this scenario, if the original material was found to be not slanderous or libelous, the plaintiff at his or her own personal expense – not campaign contributions – must immediately distribute equal time ads in the same markets admitting to the truth of the original.
If such a court was operational, money and time could not protect those who would corrupt the legislative process with lies and innuendo. It would not stop everyone, of course. There are always those who believe they can get away with anything. That’s why the punishment for such a crime should be swift and severe.
The U.S. has many special courts for special circumstances. I suggest that anyone who says that this can’t be done simply doesn’t want it done. Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reed and the appropriate House and Senate committees could do this if they wanted to.
Just maybe . . . . . .
In a nation that honors free speech, a lie in court will put you in jail. In a predominantly Christian nation that cites “Thou shall not bear false witness,” as one of its most precious precepts, slander or libel of a candidate for elected office should do the same. The problem we have is that the courts take too long to be of value during a campaign. That condition could be addressed with a special court to address candidates’ charges of slander or libel against each other or any third party. In the case of slander and libel of persons running for elected office, these should be criminal offenses with punishments equal to the destruction they cause to the electoral process. Such a court would be in session 24-7 in the months before a national election.
When charges are brought, the premise of such a hearing would be simple. The person or group charged with slander must immediately display the evidence on which any questionable statements were based, and unequivocal proof that the information distributed about a candidate was true and in proper context, or go directly to jail and pay for the distribution of ads in all of the places where the lie was presented which; 1) admit to the deception and 2) present the truth as determined by the court. If we value our electoral process, the jail time won’t be short, and the cost of corrective ads will come directly and only from the guilty party or parties.
Now to put the shoe on the other foot. The person charging slander or libel should not be able to do so risk free. That would only fill the court with frivolous gestures so that an opposing ad could say that so-and-so was charged. In order to reduce the likelihood of this scenario, if the original material was found to be not slanderous or libelous, the plaintiff at his or her own personal expense – not campaign contributions – must immediately distribute equal time ads in the same markets admitting to the truth of the original.
If such a court was operational, money and time could not protect those who would corrupt the legislative process with lies and innuendo. It would not stop everyone, of course. There are always those who believe they can get away with anything. That’s why the punishment for such a crime should be swift and severe.
The U.S. has many special courts for special circumstances. I suggest that anyone who says that this can’t be done simply doesn’t want it done. Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reed and the appropriate House and Senate committees could do this if they wanted to.
Just maybe . . . . . .
Print
Email
