The past election had the usual fusillade of negative ads in various forums promulgated by both parties.

But 2022’s batch included an unusual number of blatant lies.

Consider a striking illustration during the latter stages of the campaign, when the Republicans Governors Association bought $750,000 of ad time aimed against Gov. Tim Walz.

The broadcast ad stated Walz “pushed to defund our police.” It was provocative, but wholly inaccurate — and ultimately unsuccessful. In fact, Walz had often stated clearly, consistently and unequivocally that he did not support the “defund the police” movement, including the proposed Minneapolis ordinance that ultimately went down to defeat in 2021, a fate that Walz averted in winning re-election by a comfortable margin of nearly 8% over Republican challenger Dr. Scott Jensen, the beneficiary of the untruthful RGA undertaking.

The midterm lies may be a but prelude for even more falsehoods in the next election cycle.

It also raises the question of what legal devices may exist — or be created — to combat these type of fabrications that come from both parties and their candidates and surrogates.

Previous efforts to bar or enjoin such ads have met with little success. The challenges before dissemination run up against the restriction of “prior restraint,” stemming from the landmark 1931 case of Near v. Minnesota, in which the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that a Minnesota statute allowing for an injunction against an offensive...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMidmh0dHBzOi8vbWlubmVzb3RhcmVmb3JtZXIu...