Court ruling not a license to lie

The Olympian • Published October 10, 2007

The state Supreme Court on a 5-4 vote last week struck down a state law that prohibited a political candidate from lying about a candidate.

“What’s wrong with a law against telling lies,” one might ask.

Well, Justice Jim Johnson and four of his colleagues found plenty to take aim at in the campaign law administered by the state Public Disclosure Commission.

Johnson penned these words in the majority opinion:

“The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment.”

While free-speech advocates may take heart in Johnson’s words, it does seem as if there is a clear distinction between between political debate and political lies. Justice Barbara Madsen and three other justices thought so.

Madsen, author of the minority opinion, said falsehoods are not afforded constitutional protection and the state law didn’t infringe upon anybody’s First Amendment rights.

The majority ruling is “an invitation to lie with impunity,” she said.

The high court’s split decision has the support of the American Civil Liberties Union, which doesn’t see the government having any role in deciding who is telling the truth and who isn’t in a political speech.

Does this mean politicians, bolstered by the court ruling, should feel free to engage in no-holds-barred mudslinging and false accusations?

Certainly not. They do so at the peril of their own political careers. The electorate is hungry for bipartisan solutions to problems at the local, state and national level, not politics as usual.

It’s safe to say that even if the court of law condones political lies in the name of free speech, the court of public opinion won’t tolerate it. The public and the free press have the right and responsibility to scrutinize what politicians say about each other and make sure lies and half-truths are exposed at every turn.

It’s interesting to note that the case the state Supreme Court ruled on last week stemmed from the 2002 political race between state Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, and Green Party challenger Marylou Rickert of Shelton.

A Rickert campaign brochure included the statement that Sheldon had voted in the state Legislature to close down the Mission Creek Youth Camp in Belfair.

Sheldon denied the charge and the state Public Disclosure Commission ruled in his favor, using the state law to fine Rickert $1,000 for a campaign violation.

Rickert appealed the PDC ruling. She lost in superior court, but prevailed in appellate court and again last week in state Supreme Court, albeit by the barest of margins.

The case may be ripe for further appeal, but the PDC hasn’t decided whether to take that action.

Either way, the ruling should not be used to open the door to campaign free-for-alls.

Politicians are much better served, and received by the public, when they stick to the facts.