Liberal

Potter: False ad campaigns prompt citizens to be more informed

Corruption in politics is a concern of many Americans and an issue that taints the integrity of our democratic system.

Starting Tuesday, the Supreme Court began hearing a case regarding an Ohio law that prohibits any individual or group from making false statements in political campaigns, according to an April 16 MSNBC article. Ohio is among at least 15 states with similar laws.

The Susan B. Anthony List, a conservative anti-abortion group, filed the case challenging the law. This lawsuit resulted from the organization attempting to run attack ads claiming that Rep. Steven Driehaus (D-Ohio) supports taxpayer-funded abortion. The fundamental question the Supreme Court will consider is whether the law violates the First Amendment.

Attack ads that present untruthful or deceiving statements about candidates affect campaigns and influence voters. Politicians have enormous influence and need to be selected based on a truthful assessment.

The law in question helps ensure that citizens have accurate information to base their decisions off of.



Recently, the Supreme Court has struck down many regulations on campaign donations in Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC on the basis of the First Amendment. If it continues on this trend, the Ohio law will likely be struck down as well.

Balancing the tremendous importance of the First Amendment and regulations on election campaigns seems to be an impossibly difficult task.

In order to have a healthy democracy, both freedom of speech and honest, fair elections are essential. Unfortunately, we cannot count on politicians to maintain the integrity of elections, so we often turn to laws.

There is no doubt that the Ohio law limits freedom of speech. On the other hand, it provides some regulation that helps to ensure honesty in elections. If false advertising and dishonesty in commercial ads are prohibited, then it should also apply to campaign ads.

An additional problem this law attempts to regulate is that candidates with larger budgets will be able to run inaccurate attack ads that those with smaller budgets do not have the funds to counter.

Laws regulating campaigns would not be necessary if the citizenry held politicians to a higher standard and educated themselves enough to make truly informed votes.

The influence of wealth in politics is an issue that affects nearly all facets of our political system. It is clear that we cannot rely on politicians or laws to regulate elections.

With the impending Supreme Court decision that will likely strike down regulations on campaigns, it is increasingly necessary that citizens become involved in the political process.

Democracy relies on informed citizens who are engaged in campaigns and understand the platforms that the candidates represent. This is an extraordinarily difficult goal to achieve, but essential for our political system to truly thrive.

America has an incredibly low voting rate and little civic engagement. According to FairVote.org, voting rates for presidential elections are usually around 60 percent and 40 percent for midterm elections, which are considerably lower than most well established democracies.

It seems that most Americans have lost their drive to involve themselves in the political process. For the most part, the information voters need to make informed decisions is accessible but under-utilized.

If citizens were truly informed on the legislation politicians support and how they affect society, they would be able to finally take the power out of wealth in elections.

Rachel Potter is a junior political science and sociology major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at repotter@syr.edu.

 





Top Stories