Most Active Stories
- Authorities Identify Victims Of Fatal Truck-School Bus Crash Downtown
- U.S. House Approves Extension Of Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
- Former CCS Data Chief Sentenced To Jail, Probation
- Nearly Two Dozen People Apply For City Council Seat
- Your Donation Can Help WCBE and Central Ohioans in Need of Food This Season!
Mon April 21, 2014
SUPCUS To Consider Ohio Case On Political Lies And Free Speech
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on a political free-speech case that began in Ohio.
ML Schultze of member station WKSU in Kent reports.
Can a state law prohibit lying in political ads?
It’s been a big question since 2010, when Democrat Steve Driehaus and Republican Steve Chabot squared off in one of the hottest congressional races in the country.
An anti-abortion group called the Susan B. Anthony List rented a billboard accusing Driehaus of voting for taxpayer-funded abortion. What he’d voted for was the Affordable Care Act, and Driehaus complained the ad defamed him. The Ohio Elections Commission agreed and said the ad violated a law that’s been on the books since the 1970s.
Those arguing the billboard was protected speech include Susan B. Anthony and the American Civil Liberties Union.
Caroline Lin is a former Cleveland State political scientist who now teaches at the University of Connecticut. She says the history of the U.S. Supreme Court suggests it is sympathetic to the free speech argument.
“Traditionally, the Supreme Court has supported the public – and therefore those political action committees – that is their expressing in a political opinion, the sharing of their information, sharing their ideas with the rest of the people in the society. Without that ability to share their opinion, ideas, information, the society may be disadvantaged from finding out more information about the democratic process”
But Lin notes that the high court may opt instead for a much narrower ruling. Driehaus lost the election and dropped his complaint. So Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine argues the Supreme Court shouldn’t be considering it. Then again – in an unusual step – he’s also filed a brief for the other side, saying the law is unconstitutional.
Lin predicts that if the court rules on the narrow procedural case, the argument will reach the high court in some other case. More than a dozen other state have similar laws.