State Has Right To Punish Candidates For False Ads Ruling Upholds Commission’s Power Over Bad Advertising

A Thurston County Superior Court judge has ruled that the state has the right to punish political candidates who, with malice, sponsor political advertising that contains falsehoods.

Judge Paula Casey’s Thursday ruling upheld part of a 1984 law giving the Public Disclosure Commission jurisdiction over false campaign advertising.

But the judge indicated she may take away the commission’s ability to order candidates to stop making false statements, on grounds that it would be unconstitutional prior restraint of political speech. Casey scheduled later arguments on that issue.

The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, which sought to have the entire law struck down. The CLU argued that a candidate’s right to speak falsehoods is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that the government should not be allowed to decide what is true and what is false.

“In our system, (political speech) occupies the highest protection,” ACLU attorney David Stobaugh said at the Thursday hearing. “It is up to the voters to decide what’s true or false in a political campaign.”

PDC attorney Chip Holcomb disagreed. “It is appropriate for the state to have the ability to prevent, and at times punish, those who would deliberately utter things that they believe are false,” he said.

“That kind of speech - where somebody deliberately utters a falsehood - has no value,” Holcomb said.

In her ruling, Casey stressed that “The only kinds of speech prohibited are false statements uttered with actual malice, knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard. This is a proper matter for state regulation.”