The media is a pain but I’m talking about direct lies from Presidential candidates. “I approved this message” and direct attacks from candidates mouths on TV, on the trail, lying. The spanish ad, the social security...some fair judge would be able to say it was misrepresented, out of context so not truthful implication etc. Especially ads run in the final days before election before a candidate can react to a lie. Should be some control on wild smears at the end (like introducing evidence at the 11th hour isn’t allowed in court without special circumstances). If we have no fair judges left, we have bigger problems than banking in this country. The case would have to be presented within 24 hours of the complaint and a decision rendered immediately.
Would probably need a supreme court so not just one person has the power....just a finding that the candidate lied after taking the oath should be enough to prevent a lot.
This is for the Presidency after all...not like running for class president.
The downside is that it adds another layer to government, the judiciary, and judges seem to have political bias, so I don't trust them. There might be a few honest ones left.
I knew you were talking about candidates, but I injected the media because they are complicit and part of the problem. And like the one poster said, campaigns would devolve into one complaint after another.
Even if they aren't lies or out of context, we should look beyond the sound bite. Few of us have time to debunk all of it. Like that stupid ad blaming Bush for the black guy getting dragged behind the pickup. As horrible as that tragedy was, the ad was dishonest, misleading, and opportunist, and how could Bush possibly be responsible or even held accountable for a criminal act that took place in his state no matter what hate laws or otherwise were in place? And the Willie Horton thing. No matter who is in charge, bad things will happen under their watch. But assigning the blame is a different matter. I don't remember much about the Willie Horton (not that it wasn't a horrible thing that happened) imbroglio, but my point is that it may or may not have been directly attributable to the candidate himself, Dukakis? No matter which side it is, you need to look at the whole record of their qualifications and past actions, not just one sensationalistic ad or event.
So taking your premise to the ultimate, even if a fair arbiter ruled decisively, people wouldn't believe it and give them another scapegoat to blame, the judge.
Maybe I don't like change, but I fear that even though some of the ads are over the top, if something like you suggest were put into play, one way or another it would be an assault on free speech.
Maybe public figures ought to be able to sue for libel? They're immune, I believe, as things now stand, and that's why people get away with lies and smears. But that involves a court and judge again.
That's enough for now, something to think about and explore more fully after the election is over.