... The politician says: "You're a comedian, eh? Tell me a joke". The comedian answers: "You're a politician, eh? Tell me a lie".
I was reminded of that old joke while reading Justice Madsen's dissenting opinion in yesterday's Washington Supreme Court ruling that struck down the state's prohibition on dishonest campaigning:
Unfortunately, the majority's decision is an invitation to lie with impunity. The majority opinion advances the efforts of those who would turn political campaigns into contests of the best stratagems of lies and deceit, to the end that honest discourse and honest candidates are lost in the maelstrom.That concern struck me as hopelessly pollyannish. Haven't political campaigns always been dominated by lies and deceit, with honest candidates lost in the maelstrom more often than not? The reasons are fairly obvious when you pause to think about it.
Of course, some politicians are more honest than others, and a few are exceptionally honest, but politicians are generally dishonest because they have to be. The primary activity of government is to transfer wealth from the most productive individuals and institutions to the least productive. That can be accomplished only through a combination of force and deceit. Yes, government manages to do some good things too, but generally only as a pretext for, or side-effect of, wealth transfer, and not the other way around. And the positive externalities of government are never as satisfactory as we have been conditioned to hope and expect that they will be, and certainly not nearly as satisfactory as the promises made by the most successful politicians. Public schools? Transportation? Border controls? The "war on drugs"? The war in Iraq? How are all those things working out?
If a politician were to be perfectly honest, she would have to tell you that if elected, she would have no choice but to take your money to give to the less deserving and that she wouldn't really be able to deliver on much, if any, of her lofty platform.
A prize goes to the first reader who can produce an example of any candidate who was elected to any office by running such a campaign.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 05, 2007 12:41 AM | Email ThisJeez, there just lawyers , after all!
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on October 5, 2007 04:01 AMPoliticians don't need to lie when their priorities match the majority of the district, when they tell you up-front what their priorities are, when they communiticate regularly with their constituency and actually participate in town-meetings in their constincy, and follow through on those priorities. We all recogonize that they may not always be successful, but when they are up-front and are, then they should be reelected. If they have to depend upon smearing their opponent, then that is when government breaks down.
The reason why Olympia and DC can't get things done is because we the people have allowed negative politics to dominate the elections. While I would agree the law may have been overbroad and that it is up to the population to decide, it is time the population does start rewarding candidates for being up front.
Shark, if you have so low of an opinion on politicians then what do you want instead? Do you want the return of the Wild-west, anarchy, what?
Posted by: tc on October 5, 2007 07:19 AMI can tell you Hans Dunshee is wetting his pants with glee. He has been lying for over 10 years. Now he can do it with the sureness that he is doing what he legally is permitted to do.
I agree with P.I. above, they are Judges not Justices. But then they are elected, right?
Posted by: Ken Howard on October 5, 2007 07:21 AM"The primary activity of government is to transfer wealth from the most productive individuals and institutions to the least productive."
Actually, Stefan, the primary activity of government is to keep people who want what you have from killing you to get it.
He is in my district and I voted for him despite having a D at the end of his name. I've spoken with him many times and found him very forthcoming and truthful.
Posted by: Vince on October 5, 2007 07:30 AMThe US Constitution expressly prohibits laws abridging the freedom of speech (with exceptions for a variety of speech, including libel, sedition, incitement, etc.), but the Washington Constitution is much more vague. It says:
"Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right."
This case is about being responsible for the abuse of the right. To publish a lie about someone is to libel them, and the libeled person can sue the liar and win damages in court if he can prove the statements were published, damaging, and were false. However, if the victim is a public figure, he or she must also prove that the liar had a malicious intent - the higher standard was created for these people because they have chosen to put themselves into the limelight where they will be the subject of public opinion. The supreme court held that this law was sufficient, and therefore the law was unnecessary in addition to being, supposedly, unconstitutional.
But as the minority pointed out, it is virtually impossible to prove maliciousness in political speech, and the damage will be done regardless of the motive of the lying candidate. There is a legitimate state interest in attempting to assure that when voters decide on which of two candidates shall represent them, they can rely on the public statements the candidates have made about each other. With this legitimate interest in mind (which is similar to the legitimate state interest in prohibiting speech that incites riotous behavior, for example) the state should be able regulate political speech to the extent of prohibiting candidates from knowingly lying about their opponents.
It wasn't a matter of the politicians policing speech (Pudge at #10) or the government being the arbiter of truth (Cliff at #1) - the candidate who was lied about had to file a complaint and then a court (i.e., a jury, which has always been a "fact finder" or "arbiter of truth") would have had to decide, base on evidence, whether the lying candidate actually lied. I can find no reason why this law was a)offensive, b)any more of a violation of free speech than the proverbial law prohibiting the false and malicious shouting of "fire" in a crowded theater.
Posted by: srogers on October 5, 2007 07:59 AMThat may be what government is supposed to do, but if Hillary and the Democrats have their way, mayhem is simply justification for more government. And let's not forget how Hillary would buy votes to get elected, first by "giving" people health care at the expense of those who would pay for it, and to the detriment of the entire system, and then this cockamamie savings bond idea where every child born would get a $5,000 bond at birth for college. Again, at the expense of that shrinking minority that pay the bulk of the taxes.
As for politicians lying, Bill Clinton couldn't have been elected without the "big lie" campaign run by Begala and Carville, and Hillary wouldn't have a chance if she had to run an honest campaign and couldn't enlist organizations like MoveOn and Media Matters to create firestorms lying about her political rivals in and out of the media and politics.
Posted by: Dog on October 5, 2007 08:04 AMWonder what Madsen has to say about judges who lie and obstruct justice. She has no problems doing that; and neither does any other justice on the WA SC.
Posted by: Don on October 5, 2007 09:00 AMHow right you are. How ironic that the alleged party of small government and fiscal responsibility is actually the prime exponent of this wealth transfer from the productive blue states to the red moocher "heartland."
The top-10 recipients of federal spending received per tax dollar paid in 2004 (most recent year for which data is available):
1. New Mexico, $2.00
2. Alaska, $1.87
3. West Virginia, $1.83
4. Mississippi, $1.77
5. North Dakota, $1.73
6. Alabama, $1.71
7. Virginia, $1.66
8. Hawaii, $1.60
9. Montana, $1.58
10. South Dakota, $1.49
And the 10 states who received the least for their federal tax dollar? I bet you can guess most of them:
41. Colorado, $0.79
42. New York, $0.79
43. California, $0.79
44. Massachusetts, $0.77
45. Nevada, $0.73
46. Illinois, $0.73
47. Minnesota, $0.69
48. New Hampshire, $0.67
49. Connecticut, $0.66
50. New Jersey, $0.55
Hmm. Interesting pattern. The exceptions in the list (blue Hawaii, reddish Nevada) only stand out to prove the rule: red states are parasites. Among red states on the rest of the list, only Indiana ($0.97), Georgia ($0.96), and Texas ($0.94) received less in federal spending than they paid in federal taxes.
Source? http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
It's time for the Republican Party to come clean: they're all about wealth transfer.
Posted by: red state mooch on October 5, 2007 09:03 AMYou need to look at the factors that actually direct the flow of federal money. The states that receive the most federal money have these characteristics (not necessarily in common): small populations, a lot of federal land, large military installations, and higher than average unemployment and/or poverty rates. The fact that the top ten and bottom ten states are mostly red or blue is more of a coincidence than an indicator of the proficiency their representatives or senators at directing pork to their states.
In the end, I'd like to see this end by dramatically cutting off the flow of money OUT of the states, that is, to cut back federal taxation and limit the role of the federal government in the economies of the individual states. But I doubt you'd support that, would you? That would limit the power of democrats and seriously threaten their dream of creating economic equality on a national scale.
Posted by: srogers on October 5, 2007 09:27 AMOf course, that may not count, since technically he didn't run a campaign.
Posted by: pudge on October 5, 2007 09:41 AMMaybe something along these lines: http://thepaincomics.com/weekly011010.htm
Posted by: red state mooch on October 5, 2007 09:43 AMWashington is a case in point. The voters have the political maturity of an 8 year old.
Posted by: John Bailo on October 5, 2007 09:49 AMNot is it the age-old question: "What is truth?"
The question is "who decides what is truth?"
Should a government bureaucrat be empowered to determine the truth or falsity of political speach?
Or should truth of falsity be left to debate in the public arena?
Those who trust the neutrality, impartiality and objectivy of government bureaucrats, raise your hands. And support the dissent
The rest of us will prefer freedom.
Posted by: Dick Derham on October 5, 2007 11:12 AMNot is it the age-old question: "What is truth?"
The question is "who decides what is truth?"
Should a government bureaucrat be empowered to determine the truth or falsity of political speach?
Or should truth of falsity be left to debate in the public arena?
Those who trust the neutrality, impartiality and objectivy of government bureaucrats, raise your hands. And support the dissent
The rest of us will prefer freedom.
Posted by: Dick Derham on October 5, 2007 11:13 AMIt is no infringement on freedom to legislate against the malicious use of speech to win a seat in government by maligning the opposition through lies. And it is not a novel idea that a jury be invoked to determine whether a specific statement is or is not a lie under these circumstances.
I prefer freedom to anything else, including equality and security, always. But nobody has yet convinced me that this law infringed your freedom, my freedom, or anyone else's freedom. What do YOU think the ending phrase means in our Constitutional provision giving us the right to free speech? ("Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right"). What do you think it means to be legally responsible for the abuse of that right? Who do YOU think is supposed to determine if the right has been abused? Or do you think that the phrase was just meaningless drivel inserted for no particular reason?
Posted by: srogers on October 5, 2007 11:37 AMSecond, "being responsible for the abuse of the right" = liability in a civil suit for defamation that is decided by a jury of one's peers -- the penalty that has existed from time immemorial in this state. It does not equal being subject to an administrative inquisition presided over by a bunch of political hacks.
Posted by: Hector on October 5, 2007 12:34 PMSecond, "being responsible for the abuse of the right" = liability in a civil suit for defamation that is decided by a jury of one's peers -- the penalty that has existed from time immemorial in this state. It does not equal being subject to an administrative inquisition presided over by a bunch of political hacks.
Posted by: Hector on October 5, 2007 12:35 PMYour second point, however, does change my mind - and my apologies go to those who made this point earlier. Here is the text of the RCW in question:
(1) It is a violation of this chapter for a person to sponsor with actual malice:
(a) Political advertising or an electioneering communication that contains a false statement of material fact about a candidate for public office. However, this subsection (1)(a) does not apply to statements made by a candidate or the candidate's agent about the candidate himself or herself;
(b) Political advertising or an electioneering communication that falsely represents that a candidate is the incumbent for the office sought when in fact the candidate is not the incumbent;
(c) Political advertising or an electioneering communication that makes either directly or indirectly, a false claim stating or implying the support or endorsement of any person or organization when in fact the candidate does not have such support or endorsement.
(2) Any violation of this section shall be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
There is nothing in this section to indicate the procedural effect of the law, and I assumed that the clear and convincing evidence would be introduced to a jury for a determination of fact. Apparently that is not so; that is, according to the majority opinion the determination of fact was to be made by a politically appointed board. I don't know where that procedure is codified, but taking it to be true, that is reason enough for me to change my mind. If the statute were changed to take the adjudication out of the hands of bureaucrats and place it in the hands of a jury, where it belongs, I would change my mind back. But for now, you have convinced me that the majority was right.
Posted by: srogers on October 5, 2007 01:10 PMUmmm, excuse me Ivan, but as a dedicated socialist wouldn't you BE one of those guys who wants what other people have? I know for sure you're willing to kill to get it... you just don't have the balls to do it yourself. You prefer to comfort yourself with the delusion that your social programs and spending are highly moral, instead of what they really are: extortion.
"I have Never raised taxes on the pwople of Washington" (Christine Gregoire's Campaign Website)
"Property tax relief will be one of the first things this new legislature will tackle" Gregoire before the last legislative session.
Waiting for a ruling that this only applies to the tolerant, diverse left...
Posted by: Independent Voter on October 6, 2007 06:48 AMAs long as the people want it, the politician does not have to lie. So this leaves us two cases:
1) The people want something that is ethical, and consistent with individual rights. In this case, the politician need not lie, and can promote the good as well.
2) The people want something that is unethical, or unconstitutional, and inconsistent with individual rights. Most tax increases and a lot of initiatives fall under this category. The smoking ban comes to mind. In this case, the politician will tend to do what the people want. He will either know that it is wrong, in which case what he is doing is a form of lying, or he will be ignorant of the right thing to do, in which case he is not lying.
It reminds me of members of congress who support increasing the minimum wage. Most members of congress know that raising the minimum wage hurts the poor more than it helps them, by increasing unemployment among unskilled workers. But those politicians also know that the people are ignorant of economics, and that the politicians lack the power to teach the people economics in sound bites. So they cynically vote to raise the minimum wage in order to stay in power. There are a few members of congress who are ignorant of economics, and will vote for it out of a sense of populism...
But Edmund Burke said that the elected representative owes his constituents his judgement, even if it flies in the face of their desires.
Anyway, those who vote for increases in the minimum wage are either cynical, or ignorant. Not very good in either case.
It comes down to the people. If the people love liberty, and value the constitution, they may keep it. But when the constitution is a "living document" and the people believe it is OK to violate individual liberty via the tyrranny of their majority, we are on the road to serfdom.
Churchill said that democracy is the worst form of government, unless you consider all the others that have been tried from time to time.
He also said that the best argument against democracy was a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
We used to live in a republic with democratic elements. Increasingly, we are living in a democracy, with the tyrranny of the majority trumping individual rights.
For more on this, google "Democracy Gang."
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 7, 2007 08:37 AMhttp://www.namyth.com/jg/?chp=37
It is a short chapter from Ken Schooland's classic book, "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible, a Free Market Odyssey."
If any of you have any 8-18 year-old kids, and you want to teach them about the value of liberty and the threats to liberty that come from big government, this is a great book!
Oppose the tyrranny of the majority! We live in a republic, with democratic elements, not a pure democracy! Thank goodness!!! Today, democracy is the route to socialism.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on October 7, 2007 11:46 AM