Advertisement

Conduct, Affiliation, and Messages: A Typology of Statutes Addressing Political Deception

  • Robert N. Spicer
Chapter

Abstract

The second chapter of this project is an exploration of the statutes around the nation that address political deception. It is broken into three sections, which will explain the definition of the categories for the statutes and how some of the examples, found in the Appendix, fit into each one. This will be followed by a discussion of the constitutionality of these statutes. There will also be a brief discussion of punishments for political deception. The chapter concludes with an argument that while strong First Amendment protection of political speech is important, the legal arguments against these statutes creates a different set of problems.

Keywords

Lying U.S. Supreme Court Freedom of speech First Amendment Campaign law Political communication research Legal research Campaign codes Political communication law Media law 

References

  1. Beahrs, J. (1996). Ritual deception: A window to the hidden determinants of human politics. Politics and the Life Sciences, 15(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blum, S. (2005). Five approaches to explaining “truth” and “deception” in human communication. Journal of Anthropological Research, 61(3), 289–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bok, S. (1999). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  4. Brants, K., de Vreese, C., Moller, J., & Van Praag, P. (2010). The real spiral of cynicism? Symbiosis and mistrust between politicians and journalists. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 15(1), 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burson v. Freeman, 540 U.S. 191 (1992)Google Scholar
  6. California Election Code § 18351 (n.d.)Google Scholar
  7. Cannon, C., Dubose, L., & Reid, J. (2003). Boy genius: The architect of George W. Bush’s remarkable political triumphs. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  8. Carmola, K. (2003). Noble lying: Justice and intergenerational tension in Plato’s “Republic”. Political Theory, 31(1), 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castleman, D. (2004). Has the law made liars of us all? Wake Forest University Legal Studies, Paper No. 04-11.Google Scholar
  10. Civil remedies and sanctions, Washington § 42.17A.750 (2013)Google Scholar
  11. Common Cause. (n.d.-a). Deceptive practices 2.0: Legal and policy responses.Google Scholar
  12. Common Cause. (n.d.-b). Voting in 2008: Ten swing states. A report from the Common Cause Education Fund.Google Scholar
  13. Deceptive mailings, Arizona § 16-925 (1998)Google Scholar
  14. De Vreese, C. (2005). The spiral of cynicism reconsidered. European Journal of Communication, 20(3), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Election authorities and conduct of elections, Missouri § 115.631 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. False designation of incumbency, Michigan § 168.944 (1997)Google Scholar
  17. False Statements in Telephone Polling, Alaska § 15.13.095 (n.d.)Google Scholar
  18. Falsifying election documents, Wyoming § 22-26-107 (n.d.)Google Scholar
  19. Food Lion v. Capitol Cities/ABC, 194 F. 3d 505 (1999)Google Scholar
  20. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964)Google Scholar
  21. Hasen, R. (2013). A constitutional right to lie in campaigns and elections? Montana Law Review, 74(1), 53–77.Google Scholar
  22. Huang, H. (2010). Electoral competition when some candidates lie and others pander. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 22(3), 333–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Infiltration of campaign – False statements in a campaign – Election of a candidate, Ohio R.C. § 3517.21 (1995)Google Scholar
  24. Kellner, D. (2005). The media and election 2004. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 5(3), 298–308.Google Scholar
  25. Lostracco v. Fox, 150 Mich. App. 617 (1986)Google Scholar
  26. Mahon, J. (2007). A definition of deceiving. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 21(2), 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Massumi, B. (2002). Parables for the virtual: Movement, affect, sensation. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mearsheimer, J. (2011). Why leaders lie: The truth about lying in international politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Michigan v. Dewald, 705 NW 2d 167 (2005)Google Scholar
  30. Minnesota v. Thaddeus Victor Jude. 554 N.W.2d 750 (1996)Google Scholar
  31. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)Google Scholar
  32. Newman, M., Pennebaker, J., Berry, D., & Richards, J. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 665–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Political advertising or electioneering communication – Libel or defamation per se, Washington § 42.17A.335 (2009)Google Scholar
  34. Political Material, Louisiana § 18:1463 (2011)Google Scholar
  35. Rickert v. State of Washington Public Disclosure Committee, 168 P. 3d 826 (2007)Google Scholar
  36. Simon, W. (1998). Virtuous lying: A critique of quasi-categorical moralism. The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 12, 433–463.Google Scholar
  37. Stockdale, S. (2005). Calling out the symbol rulers. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 62(1), 64–66.Google Scholar
  38. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 13-193, slip op (U.S. Supreme Court, June 16, 2014)Google Scholar
  39. United States v. Alvarez, 132 U.S. 2537 (2012)Google Scholar
  40. United States v. Alvarez, 617 F. 3d 1198 (2010)Google Scholar
  41. Washington RCW § 42.17A.335 (2009)Google Scholar
  42. Washington v. 119 Vote No! Committee, 957 P. 2d 691 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert N. Spicer
    • 1
  1. 1.Millersville UniversityMillersvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations