Should Congress create laws to prevent political mudslinging in US elections?

No

1 of 3

by Minka Stoyanov

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Negative political campaigning, or "mud-slinging," has been a part of political campaigns since the beginning; even our forefathers had to deal with their personal lives factoring into the electoral procedure; Thomas Jefferson was attacked for having a slave mistress (Ostrom)! While this type of campaigning is an annoying and often distracting aspect to the electorate, it is difficult to control and even more difficult to stop. Some advocates of campaign reform look to the already strictly guided tenants put together by the Federal Trade Commission regarding "truth in advertising" as a guide to control run-away mud-slinging during campaign times. These laws are incredibly strict, requiring provable statements and scientific research about products; trying to apply similar restrictions to the campaign process would tromp all over our first amendment rights without significantly impacting campaign strategies. Many states have tried to enact laws restricting political campaigning, while some remain in place first amendment rights often trump the best-intentioned state laws. The first amendment of the constitution states:

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.

In one Supreme Court case involving the state of Washington it was decided that, "Free speech is revered as the Constitution's majestic guarantee,' central to the preservation of all other rights." And that, "the state asserts it may prohibit false statements of fact contained in political advertisements, [but] this claim presupposes the State possesses an independent right to determine truth and falsity in political debate" (Washington). This is hardly a right we wish to grant to the state, as it stands in complete contradiction with American democracy. Finally, few of the legal decisions made regarding campaign advertisements in any state were completed before the campaigns were over. Such legal proceedings only sensationalize the advertisements making them more visible without actually making the consumer (voter) aware of whether or not an ad has been legally found unjust before they go to the voting booth, in this case the ad has already had it's desired effect.

Thankfully, "truth in advertisement" laws are not the only method we have for monitoring and controlling political campaigns. The Federal Election Campaign Act requires that candidates report campaign funding, as well as requiring that candidates publicly support (written, voice, and visual as available) any advertisement created by their campaign. Also, any media corporation that feels the political campaigns have gotten out of hand is allowed to not broadcast advertisements for candidates; the only caveat to this is that if a broadcaster chooses to not air one candidate, the same must hold true for all of the candidates. This protects the public from broadcasters choosing which side of the debate will be heard (Title 47). But, it's not just the campaign-sponsored ads that sling mud; often it's actually not the candidate-supported ads at all. Other organizations, supporting a candidate will often openly attack the other side. While there are times politicians may (covertly) support such an attack, it cannot be legally linked to the politician, and thus he cannot be held responsible for the advertisement's content. In the last presidential elections, many of the campaigns against Al Gore specifically in reference to his military career were not supported by the Bush campaign. Stricter controls on political campaigning could lead to more of this tactic, only mudding the waters more.

Moreover, traditional media are not the only ways in which candidates are supported or not supported, and they are certainly not the only methods of campaigning. 24-hour news stations, as well as the Internet have become as important in political campaigning as any other form of media, and are even more difficult to control. This clip shows how Fox News attacks democratic candidate Barrack Obama ruthlessly (Fox News). The best example of what the new medium of Internet can do is the, now famous, Barrack Obama "1984" advertisement which completely negates everything "truth in advertising" stands for. However this spot brilliantly uses both modern and classic themes; targets a specific (but large and politically active) group, and brings to light an important political debate (old vs. new)(Marinucci). No matter what kind of laws we apply to political candidates themselves, this clip would not have applied as it was not made by the Obama campaign. It falls completely under freedom of expression granted by our First Amendment rights; no U.S. political entity has the jurisdiction to squash it. The popularity of this video may revolutionize the way campaign teams look at future tactics (Marinucci). But, this video also illustrates that no matter how hard we try to stifle certain types of campaigning, debate remains open. Trying to restrict what is allowed which may be completely impossible with constant technological advances only drags us farther from democratic ideals.

In essence, political mudslinging is an unavoidable evil of a true democracy. To try and censor advertisement only forces mudslinging into a less controlled environment and does not allow the candidates to, in open discussion, address the issues which have been brought against them. We do have restrictions in place to help maintain the most democratic system possible, but as stated by the Supreme Court, "the State's claimed compelling interest to shield the public from falsehoods during political campaign is patronizing and paternalistic. It assumes the people of this state are too ignorant or disinterested to investigate, learn, and determine for themselves the truth or falsity in political debate, and it is the proper role of the government to fill the void" (Washington). Thus, as it should in any true democracy, the burden falls on the citizen to educate themselves about the candidates and issues put before them.

Works Cited
"Negative Political Ads." Ostrom, Dawn. ABC 26 WGNO. 25 October, 2007. 24 November, 2007. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=Y2fXyAZgg og

"Fox Attacks Obama." Unknown. YouTube. 21 February 2007. 24 November, 2007. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=ouKJixL-m s

"Hillary, 1984." Unknown. YouTube. 19 March, 2007. 24 November, 2007. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=FJklyhWni DQ

"Candidates for Public Office," Title 47 U.S. Code, Chapter 5, Subchapter 3, Pt 1. ed. As of 3 January, 2005. Cornell Law School. 24 November, 2007. http://www4.law.corn ell.edu/uscode/47/31 5.html

State of Washington: Public Disclosure Commission. "119 Vote No!." 24 November, 2007. http://lw.bna.com/lw /19980630/64332.htm

U S Constitution. Amendment 1, "Freedom of Expression and Religion." 24 November, 2007. http://caselaw.lp.fi ndlaw.com/data/const itution/amendment01/

US Federal Trade Commission. Advertising Practices: Frequently Asked Questions, Answers for Small Businesses. 24 November, 2007. http://www.ftc.gov/b cp/conline/pubs/busp ubs/ad-faqs.shtm

Mari nucci, Carlos. "Political Video Smackdown." The San Francisco Chronicle. Sunday, March 18, 2007. 24 November, 2007. http://www.sfgate.co m/cgi-bin/article.cg i?f=/c/a/2007/03/18/ MNGHNONEPS1.DTL

Learn more about this author, Minka Stoyanov.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.