by Minka Stoyanov

Created on: November 24, 2007   Last Updated: May 18, 2011

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

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>