You are here
Setting the Record Straight in Missouri
Sunday, September 28th, 2008
Robert Wechsler
A troubling KMOV
television news report from Missouri (yes, another story from
Missouri) has caught fire on right-leaning blogs. A self-styled Obama
Truth Squad has been formed in Missouri, consisting of city and county
prosecutors and sheriffs, who intend to set the record straight in
response to advertisements that falsely characterize Sen. Obama and his
policies. Examples include his religion and his tax cut proposal.
There are two issues here, only one of which is even hinted at in the blogs I looked at. The first is whether prosecutors should be taking such a public role in a political campaign. It is understandable that a campaign would want the most trustworthy people possible to police false advertising, so that their criticisms will be believed by the public. But it is this very trust and believability which prosecutors should do everything possible to protect. Everyone knows that prosecutors and sheriffs are often political animals; sometimes they are even elected on a partisan ticket, especially sheriffs. But it is important that, when it comes to law enforcement, they are seen as being fair.
Vowing to set the record straight for one candidate both blurs the role of law enforcement (allowing the blogosphere to think up all sort of fantasies) and shows favoritism in law enforcement. There are Hatch Act implications here, if not against the word of the law, certainly against its spirit. If the Truth Squad were to deal with advertising from all candidates, it would seem more fair. But that raises two other questions: is this the best use of a prosecutor's time, and does false advertising break any state laws?
One of the prosecutors is said by the KMOV report to refer to respond to ads that violate the Missouri Ethics Law. But this law appears to apply only to state and local candidates, not federal candidates. And it appears that the state ethics law does not apply to the truth of an ad, but rather to disclosures about who is sponsoring the ad.
If these municipal officials are, as the report implies, implying that they will be enforcing state ethics laws dealing truth in federal political advertising, this is a serious problem. I am not saying that this is certainly being done (only this one report says so), but it is possible, and I will continue to follow this Missouri story to see if it is true.
Update: According to an Senior ABC news correspondent's blog entry, the prosecutors deny any intention to prosecute anyone (libel, they say, is a civil offense), only to respond to false advertisements.
The blog entry also notes that, despite widespread Republican attacks on having prosecutors on the Missouri Truth Squad, the McCain campaign's truth squad in South Carolina includes Attorney General Henry McMaster and Seventh Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy, a prosecutor. According to St. Louis Today, the McCain truth squad in New Hampshire includes "several public officials with prosecutorial powers, including the state attorney general."
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
There are two issues here, only one of which is even hinted at in the blogs I looked at. The first is whether prosecutors should be taking such a public role in a political campaign. It is understandable that a campaign would want the most trustworthy people possible to police false advertising, so that their criticisms will be believed by the public. But it is this very trust and believability which prosecutors should do everything possible to protect. Everyone knows that prosecutors and sheriffs are often political animals; sometimes they are even elected on a partisan ticket, especially sheriffs. But it is important that, when it comes to law enforcement, they are seen as being fair.
Vowing to set the record straight for one candidate both blurs the role of law enforcement (allowing the blogosphere to think up all sort of fantasies) and shows favoritism in law enforcement. There are Hatch Act implications here, if not against the word of the law, certainly against its spirit. If the Truth Squad were to deal with advertising from all candidates, it would seem more fair. But that raises two other questions: is this the best use of a prosecutor's time, and does false advertising break any state laws?
One of the prosecutors is said by the KMOV report to refer to respond to ads that violate the Missouri Ethics Law. But this law appears to apply only to state and local candidates, not federal candidates. And it appears that the state ethics law does not apply to the truth of an ad, but rather to disclosures about who is sponsoring the ad.
If these municipal officials are, as the report implies, implying that they will be enforcing state ethics laws dealing truth in federal political advertising, this is a serious problem. I am not saying that this is certainly being done (only this one report says so), but it is possible, and I will continue to follow this Missouri story to see if it is true.
Update: According to an Senior ABC news correspondent's blog entry, the prosecutors deny any intention to prosecute anyone (libel, they say, is a civil offense), only to respond to false advertisements.
The blog entry also notes that, despite widespread Republican attacks on having prosecutors on the Missouri Truth Squad, the McCain campaign's truth squad in South Carolina includes Attorney General Henry McMaster and Seventh Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy, a prosecutor. According to St. Louis Today, the McCain truth squad in New Hampshire includes "several public officials with prosecutorial powers, including the state attorney general."
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
