Nobody is going to deny that this campaign is starting to get a bit rough these days. Basically, it's a dead heat struggle for high stakes with under 50 days to go. So, no big surprise there. Recently I've become concerned how the smears directed at Tim Kaine and this blog have become blown out of proportion. And this has gotten me to wondering one thing: how can folks like Scott Howell (Kilgore's media advisor) and his campaign supporters get away with the constant lies, distortions, and half-truths?"Well, as it turns out, lies are ok in modern U.S. politics. I caught this article at FactCheck.org which explains how:
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?
[...]
Laws protecting consumers from false advertising of products are enforced pretty vigorously... 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.
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.
Why does this happen? According to FactCheck.org:
For one thing, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech (rightly) poses a big obstacle to enacting or enforcing laws against telling lies. In fact, 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. As the U.S. 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.
What does this leave us with? Well, I look to what the candidates have promised. Kaine's stance on honesty is clear and direct:
But remember, when you take an oath, the honest principle, I think, is the first principle...I tell people what my heart is. I tell them I am good to my word when I take the oath...But I believe the system of government we have -- which is rule of law, not of men -- is the best system there is on this planet, and it is very important that the leaders who run to lead and execute the laws of the state be able to say that they will do it, and to say it honestly.
In contrast, Jerry Kilgore has never promised to be honest, and he certainly hasn't exceeded expecations on that score. And neither, frankly, have his supporters, whether in the Kilgore campaign itself, the Republican Party of Virginia, or Kilgore's various right-wing attack forces in the Virginia political blogosphere. So, it's no big suprise that Kilgore's new Scott Howell-produced attack ads are making claims that are just a bunch of lies. What else would you expect from these people? Tell me lies...
Written by Mary Dotson