ROWAYTON, CONN. - How do we make America's 2008 presidential campaign more honest? With lawsuits – lots of libel lawsuits, to be specific.
Now we may need a bit of help from the United States Congress, and we may need the Supreme Court to look the other way, but, heck, such lawsuits would most definitely be in the public interest.
Return with me now to March 1964, when Justice William Brennan, writing for an essentially unanimous Supreme Court, delivered the landmark decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
The court ruled that a public official cannot maintain a libel lawsuit against a publisher of an aspersion, disparagement, denigration, or the like, unless that public official can show that the damaging description or portrayal was published with actual malice.
In other words, a public official can only win a libel action if that plaintiff can prove that the damaging item was not only false, but – in addition – was published with actual knowledge that it was false or was published with reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false. OK, enough law stuff.
While the Times v. Sullivan decision was sound, admirable, and truly in keeping with the best tenets of the authors of the US Constitution, a teeny-weeny exception could be just the thing to rein in the campaign slurs that are soon to be launched.
The exception: Just assume that any candidate for the presidency who disparages another candidate for the presidency is doing so with malice, with knowing falsehood, and with reckless disregard for truth. It comes with the territory.
This little exemption would allow a presidential candidate who deems himself or herself directly slandered by another candidate to sue that person for defamation. That way, we pit the defamed against the defamer, and the press is left out of it.
Imagine that John McCain (news, bio, voting record), or one of the ads he approves, says something particularly disparaging about Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record). We would get Obama v. McCain – in a court, under oath. Or suppose Hillary Clinton, or one of her ads, says something especially critical of Rudy Giuliani. We would get Giuliani v. Clinton in court, under oath. Or we might get Edwards v. Romney in court and under oath.
With expedited trials prior to Tuesday Nov. 4, 2008, the American electorate would get what no political action committee, Federal Election Commission, or editorial board is able to elicit reliably – candidates swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Plus, candidates (and their slandermeisters) would face pecuniary peril. They would have to pay hefty legal fees and run expensive retractions for any malicious falsehoods.
Run a negative ad as a presidential candidate, and you run the risk of a negative verdict prior to Election Day.
In a court of law, the dissembling and evasiveness and sidestepping (which are the hallmarks of so many utterances by politicians) would be interrogated, exposed, and legally challenged. The alleged defamers would have to produce real evidence and sworn testimony to back up their aspersions.
With presidential candidates under oath, we might actually get some truth – and consequences for those politicians who deserve them.
• Joseph H. Cooper was editorial counsel at The New Yorker from 1976 to 1996. He now teaches media law and ethics at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Conn.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Online firms boot up for 2008 campaign
Companies see growing opportunities in politics
Howard Dean was dubbed the Internet candidate in the 2004 presidential race, but his efforts to campaign online seem primitive compared to the services companies are touting for next year's election.
From creating video games starring candidates to hosting virtual online campaign events, Internet companies see increasing opportunities in the business of politics.
That was the message at a two-day conference on online politics at George Washington University this week that brought together more than 500 political consultants, campaign operatives and start-up Internet company representatives, many of them part of the fledgling "Internet political mafia," as Andrew Rasiej of the popular blog Personal Democracy Forum described it.
Howard Dean was dubbed the Internet candidate in the 2004 presidential race, but his efforts to campaign online seem primitive compared to the services companies are touting for next year's election.
From creating video games starring candidates to hosting virtual online campaign events, Internet companies see increasing opportunities in the business of politics.
That was the message at a two-day conference on online politics at George Washington University this week that brought together more than 500 political consultants, campaign operatives and start-up Internet company representatives, many of them part of the fledgling "Internet political mafia," as Andrew Rasiej of the popular blog Personal Democracy Forum described it.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Ohio Democrat Kilroy Gets Company in House Race Against Pryce
By Greg Giroux, CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY
Published: March 13, 2007
It may still be a year until Ohio holds its congressional primary for the 2008 general election, but Democrats in the Columbus-centered 15th District already know they might have to choose between two county commission colleagues angling to challenge Republican Rep. Deborah Pryce, who was narrowly re-elected last November to her eighth term.
Will Democrats again opt for Mary Jo Kilroy, who nearly defeated Pryce in 2006, and who announced last Thursday that she will run again in 2008? Or will party voters opt for Paula Brooks — like Kilroy a Franklin County (Columbus) commissioner — who is exploring a run for the seat?
CQPolitics.com interviewed Kilroy last Thursday afternoon, shortly after her campaign issued a statement saying that she intended to run again in 2008 after losing to Pryce by 1,062 votes last November. In that interview, Kilroy said that she wanted to build on the momentum from her 2006 campaign and accused Pryce of continuing to vote in lockstep with President Bush.
CQPolitics.com spoke with Brooks on Tuesday about her planned bid, which is technically in the “exploratory” phase but seems certain to blossom into an official candidacy.
Brooks — who early this year organized a “527” committee with the Internal Revenue Service to raise money for political causes — has not yet filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to set up a “hard money” fundraising committee that she can use to run a full-fledged House campaign. She plans, though, to hold a fundraiser on April 24.
Brooks said she formed an exploratory effort “to follow up on the many, many people who have frankly come to me and said that I should be our Democratic candidate.”
“I think I bring a fresh and energetic approach,” Brooks said.
Exploratory committees usually are precursors to full-fledged campaigns. Asked if there was anything that would compel her to drop her exploratory bid, Brooks replied, “Not at this time.”
Brooks’ lengthy public service career includes serving eight years as a city councilor in Upper Arlington, a suburb northwest of Columbus that has historically voted Republican, including for Bush in 2004. Brooks was elected Franklin County commissioner in 2004, winning 57 percent of the vote in a jurisdiction that accounted for about 86 percent of the overall 15th District electorate in 2006.
Brooks shared a ballot with Kilroy, who was re-elected with 53 percent.
After two-plus years on the county commission, Brooks said, “I’m looking at the federal level now because, frankly, it’s the right time in my life, and I feel a major commitment to seeing this country turned around.”
The National Republican Congressional Committee has said that it expects Pryce to win again in 2008, pointing to her survival in a strongly anti-Republican political environment in which the GOP was hurt by scandals involving some prominent Ohio Republicans.
Published: March 13, 2007
It may still be a year until Ohio holds its congressional primary for the 2008 general election, but Democrats in the Columbus-centered 15th District already know they might have to choose between two county commission colleagues angling to challenge Republican Rep. Deborah Pryce, who was narrowly re-elected last November to her eighth term.
Will Democrats again opt for Mary Jo Kilroy, who nearly defeated Pryce in 2006, and who announced last Thursday that she will run again in 2008? Or will party voters opt for Paula Brooks — like Kilroy a Franklin County (Columbus) commissioner — who is exploring a run for the seat?
CQPolitics.com interviewed Kilroy last Thursday afternoon, shortly after her campaign issued a statement saying that she intended to run again in 2008 after losing to Pryce by 1,062 votes last November. In that interview, Kilroy said that she wanted to build on the momentum from her 2006 campaign and accused Pryce of continuing to vote in lockstep with President Bush.
CQPolitics.com spoke with Brooks on Tuesday about her planned bid, which is technically in the “exploratory” phase but seems certain to blossom into an official candidacy.
Brooks — who early this year organized a “527” committee with the Internal Revenue Service to raise money for political causes — has not yet filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to set up a “hard money” fundraising committee that she can use to run a full-fledged House campaign. She plans, though, to hold a fundraiser on April 24.
Brooks said she formed an exploratory effort “to follow up on the many, many people who have frankly come to me and said that I should be our Democratic candidate.”
“I think I bring a fresh and energetic approach,” Brooks said.
Exploratory committees usually are precursors to full-fledged campaigns. Asked if there was anything that would compel her to drop her exploratory bid, Brooks replied, “Not at this time.”
Brooks’ lengthy public service career includes serving eight years as a city councilor in Upper Arlington, a suburb northwest of Columbus that has historically voted Republican, including for Bush in 2004. Brooks was elected Franklin County commissioner in 2004, winning 57 percent of the vote in a jurisdiction that accounted for about 86 percent of the overall 15th District electorate in 2006.
Brooks shared a ballot with Kilroy, who was re-elected with 53 percent.
After two-plus years on the county commission, Brooks said, “I’m looking at the federal level now because, frankly, it’s the right time in my life, and I feel a major commitment to seeing this country turned around.”
The National Republican Congressional Committee has said that it expects Pryce to win again in 2008, pointing to her survival in a strongly anti-Republican political environment in which the GOP was hurt by scandals involving some prominent Ohio Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
