Discussing things that protect against anti democratic forces I need to question why the Clinton campaign didn't file a civil suit against Donald Trump for election fraud in order to recover all the money her campaign spent and time spent and donor money spent AFTER he lost his case in NY prosected by Alvin Bragg called the hush money case. This was the case where Trump deliberately paid off Stormy Daniel's to hide her allegations against him before the 2016 election while committing elrction fraud by hiding this money spent as a business expense. This is what troubles me. When those damaged by Trump don't do anything about it when they're perfectly capable of doing something.
New Yorker Andrew. Anyone who has lived in New York for such a very long time, especially growing up there, will always be at their core a New Yorker. New England people generally share some of this but not like New York City folks.
The Trump method has used suing as a way to frighten every person or thing from acting against him. And it works, as you know know. I like to cal him a boy named Sue.
Andrew, I commented previously on the first amendment implications of criminalizing political lies and/or imposing disqualifications or the like for such lies. The value of accurate information in voting must be equivalent to or higher than the value of true information about consumer products, or investments or even pharmaceuticals. In each of those cases the first amendment is not a bar to imposing a requirement to withdraw the lie, or to correct the lie, or to pay a penalty for the lie. I believe that your proposals re intenional political lies are consistent with the first, or that they certainly ought to be as a matter of our nation's most important values. Michael H. Lipson, retired attorney
Andrew, I am a good way thru the book. Earlier I had made another comment on this topic, but not sure exactly where (I am a substack neophyte), but here it is, along with other thoughts based on what you wrote in Ch. 6--
'Here's a problem: The lie is uttered. The intent to impact voters’ choices is clear. Millions hear the lie and it is spread by others. Criminalizing the lie punishes the liar. But how to correct the wrong factual matter already out there? Is prior restraint the only way to avoid the damage done by the lies…as we have seen in this period? Is there a rationale for affording first amendment protection against the prior restraint of intentional political lies made to influence voters?'
Your proposed statute using FEC requirements for filing a "certification" of sorts that no false factual statements have been made by the politician during phases of a campaign, and for a sanction in the absence of such a certification the requirement that there be a public corrective statement filed (and perhaps announced in some media spaces?) seems to address my/our problem. (Let's ignore the present state of the FEC).
Still, though, there are temporal related difficulties. The lie is uttered, the filing is made next quarter (?), meanwhile, millions have heard it...a proceeding to impose the sanction of correcting public statement is initiated. This will be litigated to the hilt...right? Imagine lawyers like Blanche, Trump's current personal attorney pretending to be Acting AG.
Over the course of time the litigation consumes, that lie will have been repeated and repeated and repeated, among individuals and by the press and in the online world. How to avoid or at least ameliorate that result?
In connection with that wrinkle, how to deal with the repetition and broadcast of the lie by other politicians allied with the liar who are not seeking federal elective office. The MAGA Republicans in the Senate, like the "eminent" Ron Johnson (WI) constantly spout Trump's lies during non-campaign periods. Others do as well. Your provision I think won't reach them. Is there any mechanism that might do so?
Final thoughts-- I wonder what % of the American population would agree with this statement: The first amendment's right to free speech should protect a politician intentionally lying about a fact concerning another politician during an election or pre-election period?
I also wonder whether the originalists on the Court might find, somewhere in the ancient material that our founders produced, anything that would suggest their acceptance of the proposition that a politician should be free to lie about factual matters in order to succeed in an election.
Thank you Brian and Andrew, for a terrific discussion! Also, much appreciation for your book, Andrew! I got my signed copy (yay!), and it is so easy to read and understand as a layperson. I am thankful for the editing from Little Brown, too, because it can be so daunting to try to understand some legalese, especially when One has no background in law.. Phenomenal book and again, this discussion is so timely and perfect!
And Stacy, a case the person running against her was the secretary of state in Georgia, he didn’t disqualify himself and he was throwing out and gerrymandering votes for her. This was illegal because he didn’t remove himself from that job of secretary of in Georgia State because he was running governor.
“Standing up for truth, and law”. Thank you so much. That is why hope is justified, we see it too. They are good and honest people, being a good and honest judge, and we’re actually depending on that not changing like it has elsewhere. Like it has at the SC and DoJ levels.
Terrific discussion Andrew and Brian! I would completely support “ The Weissmann Truth in Elections Law” 💙🇺🇸
Thank you.🙏
When is someone going to file a comprehensive bar grievance complaint against Todd Blanche in NY? Rule 3.1, 5.1, and 8.4…
When is someone going to file a comprehensive bar grievance complaint against Todd Blanche in NY? Rule 3.1, 5.1, and 8.4…
When I is someone going to file a comprehensive bar grievance complaint against Todd Blanche in NY? Rule 3.1, 5.1, and 8.4…
When I is someone going to file a comprehensive bar grievance complaint against Todd Blanche in NY? Rule 3.1, 5.1, and 8.4…
Discussing things that protect against anti democratic forces I need to question why the Clinton campaign didn't file a civil suit against Donald Trump for election fraud in order to recover all the money her campaign spent and time spent and donor money spent AFTER he lost his case in NY prosected by Alvin Bragg called the hush money case. This was the case where Trump deliberately paid off Stormy Daniel's to hide her allegations against him before the 2016 election while committing elrction fraud by hiding this money spent as a business expense. This is what troubles me. When those damaged by Trump don't do anything about it when they're perfectly capable of doing something.
an important disucssion to have, legislation reg. certain lies will also protect law itself at a time when courts uphold democracy (to some extent)
thank you both for this
New Yorker Andrew. Anyone who has lived in New York for such a very long time, especially growing up there, will always be at their core a New Yorker. New England people generally share some of this but not like New York City folks.
We MUST keep persistent perversion of the truth by our elected officials as a part of the public conversation!!! Thanks you for LK!
Totally agree 👍 with Andrew
The Trump method has used suing as a way to frighten every person or thing from acting against him. And it works, as you know know. I like to cal him a boy named Sue.
Andrew, I commented previously on the first amendment implications of criminalizing political lies and/or imposing disqualifications or the like for such lies. The value of accurate information in voting must be equivalent to or higher than the value of true information about consumer products, or investments or even pharmaceuticals. In each of those cases the first amendment is not a bar to imposing a requirement to withdraw the lie, or to correct the lie, or to pay a penalty for the lie. I believe that your proposals re intenional political lies are consistent with the first, or that they certainly ought to be as a matter of our nation's most important values. Michael H. Lipson, retired attorney
Andrew, I am a good way thru the book. Earlier I had made another comment on this topic, but not sure exactly where (I am a substack neophyte), but here it is, along with other thoughts based on what you wrote in Ch. 6--
'Here's a problem: The lie is uttered. The intent to impact voters’ choices is clear. Millions hear the lie and it is spread by others. Criminalizing the lie punishes the liar. But how to correct the wrong factual matter already out there? Is prior restraint the only way to avoid the damage done by the lies…as we have seen in this period? Is there a rationale for affording first amendment protection against the prior restraint of intentional political lies made to influence voters?'
Your proposed statute using FEC requirements for filing a "certification" of sorts that no false factual statements have been made by the politician during phases of a campaign, and for a sanction in the absence of such a certification the requirement that there be a public corrective statement filed (and perhaps announced in some media spaces?) seems to address my/our problem. (Let's ignore the present state of the FEC).
Still, though, there are temporal related difficulties. The lie is uttered, the filing is made next quarter (?), meanwhile, millions have heard it...a proceeding to impose the sanction of correcting public statement is initiated. This will be litigated to the hilt...right? Imagine lawyers like Blanche, Trump's current personal attorney pretending to be Acting AG.
Over the course of time the litigation consumes, that lie will have been repeated and repeated and repeated, among individuals and by the press and in the online world. How to avoid or at least ameliorate that result?
In connection with that wrinkle, how to deal with the repetition and broadcast of the lie by other politicians allied with the liar who are not seeking federal elective office. The MAGA Republicans in the Senate, like the "eminent" Ron Johnson (WI) constantly spout Trump's lies during non-campaign periods. Others do as well. Your provision I think won't reach them. Is there any mechanism that might do so?
Final thoughts-- I wonder what % of the American population would agree with this statement: The first amendment's right to free speech should protect a politician intentionally lying about a fact concerning another politician during an election or pre-election period?
I also wonder whether the originalists on the Court might find, somewhere in the ancient material that our founders produced, anything that would suggest their acceptance of the proposition that a politician should be free to lie about factual matters in order to succeed in an election.
Great interview! Brian, Andrew. Great to hear some fixes!! Seems like we all know well, what the problems are. Thank you.
Thank you Brian and Andrew, for a terrific discussion! Also, much appreciation for your book, Andrew! I got my signed copy (yay!), and it is so easy to read and understand as a layperson. I am thankful for the editing from Little Brown, too, because it can be so daunting to try to understand some legalese, especially when One has no background in law.. Phenomenal book and again, this discussion is so timely and perfect!
And Stacy, a case the person running against her was the secretary of state in Georgia, he didn’t disqualify himself and he was throwing out and gerrymandering votes for her. This was illegal because he didn’t remove himself from that job of secretary of in Georgia State because he was running governor.
Right we must the people accountable for using lies to win elections.
Make it the law of the land!
“Standing up for truth, and law”. Thank you so much. That is why hope is justified, we see it too. They are good and honest people, being a good and honest judge, and we’re actually depending on that not changing like it has elsewhere. Like it has at the SC and DoJ levels.
I very much appreciate Andrew’s thinking and his ability to explain it to average, curious listeners. What a great interview! Kudos to both of you!
I love:Truth In Elections Advertising
I thought Brian was a Chiropractor on the side!😊