Truth in Advertising

This is from Brit Hume's show on Fox News:

"Truth or Consequences

The Washington state Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot stop political candidates from lying in campaign ads. The court ruled five-to-four that a state law aimed at punishing political candidates for false advertising violates free speech rights.

Justice Jim Johnson wrote for the majority — "There can be no doubt that false personal attacks are too common in political campaigns, with wide-ranging detrimental consequences ... However, government censorship ... is not a constitutionally permitted remedy."

But Justice Barbara Madsen called the ruling — "An invitation to lie with impunity." And she added — "It is little wonder that so many view political campaigns with distrust and cynicism." "

It is illegal in this country, and rightly so, for a company to lie in its advertisement. It is not a violation of freedom of speech to prevent a company from making claims about its products that simply are not true of them. It protects the comsumer and creates the kind of transparency needed to have a successful free market.

What, then, could possibly justify this decision? Isn't someone running for office offering a service, and thus advertising his product? And in many ways, couldn't such a candidate potentially be more harmful to more people than a falsely-advertised product?

What seems more likely is that the court isn't at all interested in freedom of speech, but is actually interested in protecting politicians from what they say about a lot of issues. Politicians make all sorts of statements about the economy, social issues, etc. that are demonstrably untrue. What would happen if candidates were made by law to say what is true? How many policies could they support if they had to tell the truth about the policies, and why they are supporting them?

Let us hope that this goes to a higher court, and that the higher court has more sense than this one.