Honesty is a BIG deal to me ~ and I detest the incessant lying in politics that is usually so easy to debunk ~ but this is actually an intriguing legal case ~ I also find it both humorous and horrifying that any group is willing to publicly argue for the right to lie ~ Sooz

Supreme Court to rule on anti-choice group’s right to lie in ads
By David Ferguson
Saturday, January 11, 2014 14:29 EST

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Friday that it is preparing to hear a challenge to an Ohio law prohibiting candidates and political groups from making false statements in campaign advertising. According to Huffington Post, anti-choice group the Susan B. Anthony List maintains that Ohio’s False Statement Law stifles their right to free speech.

The case will be argued in April and a decision is expected during the last weeks of the Court’s term in the summer. The Susan B. Anthony List issued a press release Friday saying that it is jubilant that the Court will hear their case.

“We are thrilled at the opportunity to have our arguments heard,” said the group’s Marjorie Dannenfelser. “The Ohio Election Commission statute demonstrates complete disregard for the Constitutional right of citizens to criticize their elected officials.”

The foundation made demonstrably false statements during its 2010 campaign to unseat Democratic then-Rep. Steven Driehaus. The organization erected billboards that said, “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.”

The anti-choice group made the allegations based on Driehaus’ vote in favor of President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare.” In fact, federal law specifies that no federal tax dollars will ever be used to provide abortions for women in need. Furthermore, no such programs are implemented under the ACA.

That fact rendered the slew of billboards the Anthony List erected in Driehaus’ district false in the eyes of the law, and the billboards were taken down.

Susan B. Anthony List and the Tea Party group the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes both filed federal lawsuits saying that the state violated the Anthony List’s First Amendment rights. A federal court dismissed the lawsuits in 2011 and an appeals court upheld that decision last year.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/11/supreme-court-to-rule-on-anti-choice-groups-right-to-lie-in-ads/

Interesting indeed! There is lying in politics that can be explained away. For instance "I promise to create more jobs". If the candidate doesn't, he can point fingers and blame all sorts of things (or people). Even if he knew the promise was a lie to begin with, there is no way to prove it. All of them do that.

I think lying about another candidate's actions or views goes beyond that. I wonder if Driehaus could sue for libel/slander? That would maybe put a stop to this that no law can.

As for this:

“We are thrilled at the opportunity to have our arguments heard,” said the group’s Marjorie Dannenfelser. “The Ohio Election Commission statute demonstrates complete disregard for the Constitutional right of citizens to criticize their elected officials.”

Seriously? There is a HUGE (imo) difference between criticism and a lie, especially when it comes to print ads used in a political compaign.

i would love it if the lying would stop.

Let them lie but catch them and expose them every time.

Let there be a cost. Let political liars be liable for civil damages, particularly when the lies are defamatory, slander, libelous. It has been a mistake to give them immunity.

They should be liable to both criminal and civil damages just as we are. Isn't that what responsibility and accountability are about?