Why not strengthen slander/libel laws when it involves a political office? Also you could offer/mandate that all political ads be run through a fact checking office.
We have limited the speech of the media before. For the longest time we had laws that stated each side of a story must be given equal air time. Requiring political ads to be fact checked seems quite reasonable. How can you be against the facts ?
The Internet.
I'm not too concerned about what the internet does for political discourse. It has a self sanitizing nature that robocalls and television ads do not.
Some schmuck on a blog with comments screened or disabled can scream all he wants about what he thinks is the truth. But I can, with equal ease, do the same in the opposite way. I can not do the same with robocalling or television ads. I can not challenge the validity of an attack ad on television backed by millions of dollars of funding, because I don't have millions of dollars of funding to battle it with.
A blog I, or you, or anyone can handle. Prime time advertising on a national broadcasting network, not so much.
A blog I, or you, or anyone can handle. Prime time advertising on a national broadcasting network, not so much.
So speech is free, but not on TV?
I'm not sure where you have been living but here in the United States of America the speech on television has not been free. It has been regulated for a long long time.
I'm not sure where you have been living but here in the United States of America the speech on television has not been free. It has been regulated for a long long time.
Only by the FCC in a way that many, including myself, argue is unconstitutional. And the FCCs regulation of the content of broadcasts has been diminishing over time.
Again, stop worrying about what is legal and illegal. That is not something to argue about. You can just ask a lawyer and get an answer.
Instead, think about what is right and what is wrong. What is possible and what is impossible.
Free speech is right, that means even speech you don't like. Actually, it especially means speech you don't like. Even if you were opposed to free speech, there is no possible way of stopping it. Trying to stop free speech is as pointless, stupid, and wasteful as trying to stop digital file sharing. If you've got a problem, restricting speech is not the answer.
I mean, what law are you going to make?
Politicians can't lie in ads on TV - Ok, so they won't lie, they'll just spin the truth like there's no tomorrow. They already have mastered this art.
Politicians can't buy ads on TV at all - Ok, so someone else will buy the ads instead of the politicians buying them.
Nobody can buy any ads on TV of a political nature - Ok, so all the TV networks lose a shitton of money because all those ad buyers just disappear. Because of this, they hate your guts for passing this law. During the "news" they trash you to kingdom come. You lose the next election, and the next congress changes the law back to the way it was. You couldn't fight back against the news, because you couldn't buy any ads on TV!
Ok, so you make a law that no political opinions of any kind can be on TV. Ok, so the news will say true things that are spun to all hell, and call it objective reporting of facts. They just selectively pick and choose which facts they want to report on.
Ok, so now you're down to no politics at all on television. Throw in newspapers and radio while you're at it. Ok, so now you've put thousands of people out of work and ruined multiple TV businesses taking down the economy, and pissed of every american who likes watching politics on TV. Also, you've cut off millions of americans from knowing anything at all about what's going on in government at all. And now the only people who know anything that's going on are people who read the Internets where people can say anything at all.
Ok, so we need some politics on TV. We'll have the government report on itself, and nobody else. - Hello China!
We kinda have that in the UK, it is called the BBC and it is not so bad.
We also have C-SPAN in the US. The only reason the BBC works is because you also have non-BBC. If the BBC was the only source of news about government, period, then you have a problem.
Only by the FCC in a way that many, including myself, argue is unconstitutional. And the FCCs regulation of the content of broadcasts has been diminishing over time.
I can agree with this, this however is not the issue I were speaking to.
Free speech is right, that means even speech you don't like. Actually, it especially means speech you don't like. Even if you were opposed to free speech, there is no possible way of stopping it. Trying to stop free speech is as pointless, stupid, and wasteful as trying to stop digital file sharing. If you've got a problem, restricting speech is not the answer.
I am quite aware of this, In no way did I say that we should stop the speech, I said we should fact check it.
I mean, what law are you going to make?
I already said what laws. Strengthen Slander/Libel laws and offer/mandate that all political ads go through a fact checking office. Both would go towards toning down the vitriol and bring some honest sanity to the discourse. At worst it would lead to them utilizing real facts and figures.
I am sick of seeing an ad and having it say so and so voted for bad-bill-192 and I go and check his voting record and in fact he didn't vote for it. Out and out lies are what that would get rid of.
Politicians can't lie in ads on TV - Ok, so they won't lie, they'll just spin the truth like there's no tomorrow. They already have mastered this art.
Politicians can't buy ads on TV at all - Ok, so someone else will buy the ads instead of the politicians buying them.
Nobody can buy any ads on TV of a political nature - Ok, so all the TV networks lose a shitton of money because all those ad buyers just disappear. Because of this, they hate your guts for passing this law. During the "news" they trash you to kingdom come. You lose the next election, and the next congress changes the law back to the way it was. You couldn't fight back against the news, because you couldn't buy any ads on TV!
Ok, so you make a law that no political opinions of any kind can be on TV. Ok, so the news will say true things that are spun to all hell, and call it objective reporting of facts. They just selectively pick and choose which facts they want to report on.
Ok, so now you're down to no politics at all on television. Throw in newspapers and radio while you're at it. Ok, so now you've put thousands of people out of work and ruined multiple TV businesses taking down the economy, and pissed of every american who likes watching politics on TV. Also, you've cut off millions of americans from knowing anything at all about what's going on in government at all. And now the only people who know anything that's going on are people who read the Internets where people can say anything at all.
Ok, so we need some politics on TV. We'll have the government report on itself, and nobody else. - Hello China!
Where the hell do you get all of this? I mean seriously? How do you go from "We could strengthen Slander/Libel laws and maybe add a fact checking office" to all of that? Did you really read what I posted?
We kinda have that in the UK, it is called the BBC and it is not so bad.
We also have C-SPAN in the US. The only reason the BBC works is because you also have non-BBC. If the BBC was the only source of news about government, period, then you have a problem.
Well if you look at the state of media in the UK, outside of the BBC, then you have a an issue. Of the other broadcast media (ITV, Channel 4 (owned by the BBC among others) and Sky) you can see from this survey from http://themediablog.typepad.com that the BBC and subsidiaries are the biggest proponents of neutral news. Both ITV and Sky News have larger bias ranking that the BBC or Channel 4
I think this can show that government funded media can be a success with editorial impartiality and that the other UK broadcast news counts for jack shit. Sky is basically Fox News for the UK and ITV is so watered down and populist that it is useless as a news source.
I already said what laws. Strengthen Slander/Libel laws and offer/mandate that all political ads go through a fact checking office. Both would go towards toning down the vitriol and bring some honest sanity to the discourse. At worst it would lead to them utilizing real facts and figures.
Sounds like the Ministry of Truth to me.
Out and out lies are what that would get rid of.
Impossible. Almost nothing in any political attack ad is a complete lie. If you need to understand this, take a look at false advertising laws. You can get away with saying the most ludicrous things without lying. Look at the fake medicine that says "for flu symptoms" when it's just water. Is it a lie? No, it doesn't say anything about whether it cures, or even causes more, flu symptoms. Clearly you are young and naive, and have not learned the ways of lying without lying.
I think this can show that government funded media can be a success with editorial impartiality and that the other UK broadcast news counts for jack shit. Sky is basically Fox News for the UK and ITV is so watered down and populist that it is useless as a news source.
Clearly you don't get the point either. Yes, we know the BBC as it is today is pretty good. The point is not whether it's good or bad. The point is that if it had no competition, how would you know if it was good or bad? You need an open government where citizens can see what the government is doing and report it to each other. If the only one reporting on the government is the government, you have a serious fucking issue.
Those other stations that aren't as good as the BBC serve a great purpose, and that is keeping the BBC honest. It doesn't matter if they suck or not. What matters is that if the BBC were the only station, they could completely lie and spread government propaganda in a North Korea style, and you wouldn't know it was wrong because there's no other sources. Because those other sources exist, the BBC can't do anything like that otherwise the other reporters would run stories about the BBC spreading propaganda and such and such.
I mean come on people. We learned all these lessons centuries ago. You're seriously suggesting government control of news and limiting free speech. This is elementary school history class situation. Maybe that's how the problem keeps coming back to bite us despite the lessons of history. People live in a North Korea, so they react by fighting for freedom. Then they don't like what other people are doing with their freedom, so they turn back into a police state, and back and forth and back and forth for all of human history.
Strengthen Slander/Libel laws and offer/mandate that all political ads go through a fact checking office.
Who runs the fact checking office. Do you really believe it would be non-partisan?
I mean come on people. We learned all these lessons centuries ago. You're seriously suggesting government control of news and limiting free speech. This is elementary school history class situation. Maybe that's how the problem keeps coming back to bite us despite the lessons of history. People live in a North Korea, so they react by fighting for freedom. Then they don't like what other people are doing with their freedom, so they turn back into a police state, and back and forth and back and forth for all of human history.
I mean come on people. We learned all these lessons centuries ago. You're seriously suggesting government control of news and limiting free speech. This is elementary school history class situation. Maybe that's how the problem keeps coming back to bite us despite the lessons of history. People live in a North Korea, so they react by fighting for freedom. Then they don't like what other people are doing with their freedom, so they turn back into a police state, and back and forth and back and forth for all of human history.
Problem is people are so shortsighted that they'll demand others be denied freedoms based on their own feelings. It's the same in America unfortunately: "Only I and people who think exactly like me deserve to have freedom!"
Problem is people are so shortsighted that they'll demand others be denied freedoms based on their own feelings. It's the same in America unfortunately: "Only I and people who think exactly like me deserve to have freedom!"
I already said what laws. Strengthen Slander/Libel laws and offer/mandate that all political ads go through a fact checking office. Both would go towards toning down the vitriol and bring some honest sanity to the discourse. At worst it would lead to them utilizing real facts and figures.
Sounds like the Ministry of Truth to me.
Wow, thats a strong argument against those ideas! Just one reference to Orwell and thats that.
Impossible. Almost nothing in any political attack ad is a complete lie. If you need to understand this, take a look at false advertising laws. You can get away with saying the most ludicrous things without lying. Look at the fake medicine that says "for flu symptoms" when it's just water. Is it a lie? No, it doesn't say anything about whether it cures, or even causes more, flu symptoms. Clearly you are young and naive, and have not learned the ways of lying without lying.
While I maybe naive I am not that young, well no more than you. And while you say that almost nothing in any political attack ad is a complete lie I saw more than a few of them this past election cycle. Claims of representatives voting records as well as facts and figures that are verifiability false.
The Slander/Libel law would get rid of outrageous claims like the accusation that Cuomo had an affair made by Paladino. He made the statement that he had proof but refused to show it. You really think that this should be part of the political discourse in the US? Granted one would think that what Slander/Libel laws we have should already deal with it but it does not seem to be doing so.
Overall I think you are reading far more into what I am suggesting than is there. And I think you are giving far too much weight to freedom itself shining light on this sort of abuse.
Yes even with stronger libel/slander laws and even with a fact checking office you would still get ads like "Does Obama want to raise the income tax? Some would say yes!" There are no facts there to check, and there is no libel there seek compensation for.
You wouldn't be able to stop ambiguous statements or opinions. That is out side the domain of a fact checker, which checks facts. So too is it outside slander/libel laws as well. Maybe you think that I don't understand that? I am quite aware, I assure you.
I am still quite unsure how you came to the conclusions you have based on such a small starting position. I would guess that there is a lot there that you have worked through and are just giving me the end result of a great deal of thought. However with out the road you used to get to your conclusions I am frankly left a bit baffled at your logic.
Maybe all of this falls under the auspices of the idea that if the law does not arrest a behavior or action that it should not be there in the first place. Maybe we should then get rid of our laws on murder? They most certainly have not stopped brothers from killing each other.
Strengthen Slander/Libel laws and offer/mandate that all political ads go through a fact checking office.
Who runs the fact checking office. Do you really believe it would be non-partisan?
Thats a good question! I have no idea, honestly it is just an idea. We hope many institutions in the union are non-partisan, the Judicial branch, the CBO. Can we guarantee that it would be 100% non-partisan, probably not. Can you limit their mandate to censor based solely upon facts? yes. If an ad has no facts in it one could not say "Can't show this on air, sorry". This can be enforced by the courts just as the FCC is limited by certain judicial rulings.
I think you have a general misunderstanding of how slander/libel law works. It's not illegal, nor can it be made illegal, to lie. That would be unconstitutional, as per the first amendment. The way slander/libel works is if somebody says or writes a lie that causes harm, you can try to sue them in court. It's not a criminal offense, it can't be because it is speech.
So let's say you are running for office and your opponent runs an attack ad. For the sake of argument, we'll assume that it has an outright lie in it. The ad says "zehaeva killed ten babies with a hammer" Ok, so if you want to do something, you have to sue them. First off, good luck pushing that lawsuit through the slow ass courts before the election. Second off, you have to come up with some harm you suffered as a direct result of those lies. And let's say you win, what do you win? You win some money, and you still lost the election you baby killer!
If you want free speech, which I'm sure you do, that means you have to tolerate and accept this speech that you don't like. Lying in political ads? It's just part of the deal you accept when you get free speech. You just gotta deal with it, the same way you deal with the KKK having a march down the street. If you want to fight it, you've got to find some other answer besides making a law. That's the wrong answer to almost every problem.
Limiting or outright banning campaign contributions might help. Can't pay for the ad? Well then it doesn't go up.
Ok, I've got a big pocket full of money and I want Joebob to win the election. I'm not allowed to give Joebob any money so that he can buy an ad. Well, I'll just buy my own ad that says vote for Joebob paid for by Scott. You can't stop me, that would be limiting free speech.
You didn't think your clever plan all the way through. Play some more board games and learn about loopholes. You can't seal them all up.
The Slander/Libel law would get rid of outrageous claims like the accusation that Cuomo had an affair made by Paladino. He made the statement that he had proof but refused to show it. You really think that this should be part of the political discourse in the US? Granted one would think that what Slander/Libel laws we have should already deal with it but it does not seem to be doing so.
Our slander/libel laws are fine. Look at places like the UK where they're more strict, and you'll see frequent abuse.
To prove slander in the US, you have to prove intent, untruth, and harm. It's not a crime to lie, nor is it a crime to reveal truth in a harmful way (provided you don't violate another unrelated law like HIPPA). The burden of proof is high for a reason.
Maybe all of this falls under the auspices of the idea that if the law does not arrest a behavior or action that it should not be there in the first place. Maybe we should then get rid of our laws on murder? They most certainly have not stopped brothers from killing each other.
How many murders do you think there would be if it were perfectly legal and had no repercussions? Crimes of passion will happen regardless, and punishment there is to minimize the danger violent people pose to others. But planned murder? I'm confident that our laws against it are a deterrent.
More to the point, your arguments fail to address the simple fact that there is absolutely no practical way to limit political speech without either violating the first amendment or creating an unenforceable law.
The Slander/Libel law would get rid of outrageous claims like the accusation that Cuomo had an affair made by Paladino. He made the statement that he had proof but refused to show it. You really think that this should be part of the political discourse in the US? Granted one would think that what Slander/Libel laws we have should already deal with it but it does not seem to be doing so.
Cuomo would have had to have sued Paladino in court. If he could have proven intent, harm, and falsehood, he would have won.
Ok, I've got a big pocket full of money and I want Joebob to win the election. I'm not allowed to give Joebob any money so that he can buy an ad. Well, I'll just buy my own ad that says vote for Joebob paid for by Scott. You can't stop me, that would be limiting free speech.
No, but you can prevent corporations or private entities from giving money (which we currently do not). Should the First Amendment apply to companies or businesses?
No, but you can prevent corporations or private entities from giving money (which we currently do not).
So they don't give money: they just pay for their own ads without sanction or approval from the candidate. Now what?
Or, they give money to an individual, who himself uses the money to pay a third individual to make an ad. Now what?
Should the First Amendment apply to companies or businesses?
For commercial speech, there are specific and weak regulations. Just about everything else is fair game for freedom currently, and probably should be. Otherwise, a single nonincorporated wealthy person becomes immensely powerful in this realm.
Limiting or outright banning campaign contributions might help. Can't pay for the ad? Well then it doesn't go up.
Ok, I've got a big pocket full of money and I want Joebob to win the election. I'm not allowed to give Joebob any money so that he can buy an ad. Well, I'll just buy my own ad that says vote for Joebob paid for by Scott. You can't stop me, that would be limiting free speech.
You didn't think your clever plan all the way through. Play some more board games and learn about loopholes. You can't seal them all up.
You'll notice all your commercial said was "Vote for JoeBob." Nothing about how his competitor, Assman, denied healthcare benefits to seniors and oh look he was recently seen kicking a puppy! "Vote for X!" ads are fine, "Don't vote for Y!" ads aren't.
I think you have a general misunderstanding of how slander/libel law works.
I am quiet aware, thank you. At no point in time did I say that this would end with the person doing the slandering end up in prison or anything else like that. Assuming that I do not understand that laws when all I said was that they should be strengthened is a pretty large leap of logic.
My thoughts were that stronger Libel/Slander laws could give those who were hurt by it easier recourse to sue the other campaign. This could provide a chilling effect that could damper such speech before it even gets out the gate. Knowing that you would, eventually, have to give your opponent money straight out of your campaign coffers directly weakens your campaign for office and strengthens your opponents. While it may not work fast, as you rightfully point out the courts and terribly slow, it would work such that if you lost because of it you would be in a stronger position for the next election and if you won in spite of it your future campaigns to keep office would be stronger still.
No, but you can prevent corporations or private entities from giving money (which we currently do not). Should the First Amendment apply to companies or businesses?
Ok, so Company X wants to buy billboards all over town that say "Vote for X" You make a law that says no corporation may spend money in any way to help any political candidate. You basically make it illegal for any corporate entity to engage in political speech. Ok, so Company X gives the CEO a 2 million dollar bonus for his good work. He then personally buys 2 million dollars worth of billboards that say "Vote for X".
You'll notice all your commercial said was "Vote for JoeBob." Nothing about how his competitor, Assman, denied healthcare benefits to seniors and oh look he was recently seen kicking a puppy! "Vote for X!" ads are fine, "Don't vote for Y!" ads aren't.
"Give excellent service to white people" is fine, "kill all the jews" isn't fine.
All speech is fine. Free speech means all the speech, especially the speech you don't like. If you don't want freedom of speech, have the balls to say so. If you do, then that means you have to tolerate speech you don't like, even lies.
No, but you can prevent corporations or private entities from giving money (which we currently do not). Should the First Amendment apply to companies or businesses?
Ok, so Company X wants to buy billboards all over town that say "Vote for X" You make a law that says no corporation may spend money in any way to help any political candidate. You basically make it illegal for any corporate entity to engage in political speech. Ok, so Company X gives the CEO a 2 million dollar bonus for his good work. He then personally buys 2 million dollars worth of billboards that say "Vote for X".
He's a private citizen, he can do that (although I think he'd rather wipe his ass with Benjamins than put up bilboards but that's me). I wouldn't necessarily say companies can't engage in political speech either. What I don't appreciate is ads that are nothing but "Blah blah Proper Noun is going to do something evil, look at all the evil he has done in the past, blah blah blah..."
Edit: And no lies do not have to be tolerated, since there is legal recourse through civil lawsuits of slander and libel. Slander is a lot harder to prove since it's just spoken, libel is any damaging lies published to a permanent media like a newspaper or tv ad.
Why not? If there's no slander, they're perfectly OK. What if I just say "Don't vote for X, he's bad?" What if I just say "don't vote for Republicans?"
You'll notice all your commercial said was "Vote for JoeBob." Nothing about how his competitor, Assman, denied healthcare benefits to seniors and oh look he was recently seen kicking a puppy! "Vote for X!" ads are fine, "Don't vote for Y!" ads aren't.
"Give excellent service to white people" is fine, "kill all the jews" isn't fine.
That's totally not my point, but, the first may seem like a narrow statement, but in it's narrowness you define it's broadness. It's only saying white people should have excellent service, it's not also saying, "and everyone else should get treated like shit!" and anyone who derives that meaning from that statement is stupid. The second is covered under hate speech.
"Don't vote for Y!" ads aren't.
Why not? If there's no slander, they're perfectly OK. What if I just say "Don't vote for X, he's bad?" What if I just say "don't vote for Republicans?"
What is the specific line they cannot cross?
"don't vote for proper noun because they are evil and here is whole cloth to totally back up our point." It is libel because it is intentionally trying to hurt the target's chances of winning by attacking their reputation.
"don't vote for proper noun because they are evil and here is whole cloth to totally back up our point." It is libel because it is intentionally trying to hurt the target's chances of winning by attacking their reputation.
I don't think this is covered by the current laws unless you lose. Even then, as was pointed out above, still damned hard to prove.
"don't vote for proper noun because they are evil and here is whole cloth to totally back up our point." It is libel because it is intentionally trying to hurt the target's chances of winning by attacking their reputation.
I don't think this is covered by the current laws unless you lose. Even then, as was pointed out above, still damned hard to prove.
Statement of Intent: This ad paid for by Joe Shit and run on channels 444 and 939193873892-2 is libel against me because it has clear lies and was intended to cause me harm; which it has as I lost the election.
Comments
Some schmuck on a blog with comments screened or disabled can scream all he wants about what he thinks is the truth. But I can, with equal ease, do the same in the opposite way. I can not do the same with robocalling or television ads. I can not challenge the validity of an attack ad on television backed by millions of dollars of funding, because I don't have millions of dollars of funding to battle it with.
A blog I, or you, or anyone can handle. Prime time advertising on a national broadcasting network, not so much.
edit: I mucked up some commas >>
Again, stop worrying about what is legal and illegal. That is not something to argue about. You can just ask a lawyer and get an answer.
Instead, think about what is right and what is wrong. What is possible and what is impossible.
Free speech is right, that means even speech you don't like. Actually, it especially means speech you don't like. Even if you were opposed to free speech, there is no possible way of stopping it. Trying to stop free speech is as pointless, stupid, and wasteful as trying to stop digital file sharing. If you've got a problem, restricting speech is not the answer.
I mean, what law are you going to make?
Politicians can't lie in ads on TV - Ok, so they won't lie, they'll just spin the truth like there's no tomorrow. They already have mastered this art.
Politicians can't buy ads on TV at all - Ok, so someone else will buy the ads instead of the politicians buying them.
Nobody can buy any ads on TV of a political nature - Ok, so all the TV networks lose a shitton of money because all those ad buyers just disappear. Because of this, they hate your guts for passing this law. During the "news" they trash you to kingdom come. You lose the next election, and the next congress changes the law back to the way it was. You couldn't fight back against the news, because you couldn't buy any ads on TV!
Ok, so you make a law that no political opinions of any kind can be on TV. Ok, so the news will say true things that are spun to all hell, and call it objective reporting of facts. They just selectively pick and choose which facts they want to report on.
Ok, so now you're down to no politics at all on television. Throw in newspapers and radio while you're at it. Ok, so now you've put thousands of people out of work and ruined multiple TV businesses taking down the economy, and pissed of every american who likes watching politics on TV. Also, you've cut off millions of americans from knowing anything at all about what's going on in government at all. And now the only people who know anything that's going on are people who read the Internets where people can say anything at all.
Ok, so we need some politics on TV. We'll have the government report on itself, and nobody else. - Hello China!
I am sick of seeing an ad and having it say so and so voted for bad-bill-192 and I go and check his voting record and in fact he didn't vote for it. Out and out lies are what that would get rid of. Where the hell do you get all of this? I mean seriously? How do you go from "We could strengthen Slander/Libel laws and maybe add a fact checking office" to all of that? Did you really read what I posted?
I think this can show that government funded media can be a success with editorial impartiality and that the other UK broadcast news counts for jack shit. Sky is basically Fox News for the UK and ITV is so watered down and populist that it is useless as a news source.
EDIT: This blog post put my point more eloquently .
Those other stations that aren't as good as the BBC serve a great purpose, and that is keeping the BBC honest. It doesn't matter if they suck or not. What matters is that if the BBC were the only station, they could completely lie and spread government propaganda in a North Korea style, and you wouldn't know it was wrong because there's no other sources. Because those other sources exist, the BBC can't do anything like that otherwise the other reporters would run stories about the BBC spreading propaganda and such and such.
I mean come on people. We learned all these lessons centuries ago. You're seriously suggesting government control of news and limiting free speech. This is elementary school history class situation. Maybe that's how the problem keeps coming back to bite us despite the lessons of history. People live in a North Korea, so they react by fighting for freedom. Then they don't like what other people are doing with their freedom, so they turn back into a police state, and back and forth and back and forth for all of human history.
The Slander/Libel law would get rid of outrageous claims like the accusation that Cuomo had an affair made by Paladino. He made the statement that he had proof but refused to show it. You really think that this should be part of the political discourse in the US? Granted one would think that what Slander/Libel laws we have should already deal with it but it does not seem to be doing so.
Overall I think you are reading far more into what I am suggesting than is there. And I think you are giving far too much weight to freedom itself shining light on this sort of abuse.
Yes even with stronger libel/slander laws and even with a fact checking office you would still get ads like "Does Obama want to raise the income tax? Some would say yes!" There are no facts there to check, and there is no libel there seek compensation for.
You wouldn't be able to stop ambiguous statements or opinions. That is out side the domain of a fact checker, which checks facts. So too is it outside slander/libel laws as well. Maybe you think that I don't understand that? I am quite aware, I assure you.
I am still quite unsure how you came to the conclusions you have based on such a small starting position. I would guess that there is a lot there that you have worked through and are just giving me the end result of a great deal of thought. However with out the road you used to get to your conclusions I am frankly left a bit baffled at your logic.
Maybe all of this falls under the auspices of the idea that if the law does not arrest a behavior or action that it should not be there in the first place. Maybe we should then get rid of our laws on murder? They most certainly have not stopped brothers from killing each other.
So let's say you are running for office and your opponent runs an attack ad. For the sake of argument, we'll assume that it has an outright lie in it. The ad says "zehaeva killed ten babies with a hammer" Ok, so if you want to do something, you have to sue them. First off, good luck pushing that lawsuit through the slow ass courts before the election. Second off, you have to come up with some harm you suffered as a direct result of those lies. And let's say you win, what do you win? You win some money, and you still lost the election you baby killer!
If you want free speech, which I'm sure you do, that means you have to tolerate and accept this speech that you don't like. Lying in political ads? It's just part of the deal you accept when you get free speech. You just gotta deal with it, the same way you deal with the KKK having a march down the street. If you want to fight it, you've got to find some other answer besides making a law. That's the wrong answer to almost every problem.
You didn't think your clever plan all the way through. Play some more board games and learn about loopholes. You can't seal them all up.
To prove slander in the US, you have to prove intent, untruth, and harm. It's not a crime to lie, nor is it a crime to reveal truth in a harmful way (provided you don't violate another unrelated law like HIPPA). The burden of proof is high for a reason. How many murders do you think there would be if it were perfectly legal and had no repercussions? Crimes of passion will happen regardless, and punishment there is to minimize the danger violent people pose to others. But planned murder? I'm confident that our laws against it are a deterrent.
More to the point, your arguments fail to address the simple fact that there is absolutely no practical way to limit political speech without either violating the first amendment or creating an unenforceable law. Cuomo would have had to have sued Paladino in court. If he could have proven intent, harm, and falsehood, he would have won.
Or, they give money to an individual, who himself uses the money to pay a third individual to make an ad. Now what?
For commercial speech, there are specific and weak regulations. Just about everything else is fair game for freedom currently, and probably should be. Otherwise, a single nonincorporated wealthy person becomes immensely powerful in this realm.
My thoughts were that stronger Libel/Slander laws could give those who were hurt by it easier recourse to sue the other campaign. This could provide a chilling effect that could damper such speech before it even gets out the gate. Knowing that you would, eventually, have to give your opponent money straight out of your campaign coffers directly weakens your campaign for office and strengthens your opponents. While it may not work fast, as you rightfully point out the courts and terribly slow, it would work such that if you lost because of it you would be in a stronger position for the next election and if you won in spite of it your future campaigns to keep office would be stronger still.
All speech is fine. Free speech means all the speech, especially the speech you don't like. If you don't want freedom of speech, have the balls to say so. If you do, then that means you have to tolerate speech you don't like, even lies.
Edit: And no lies do not have to be tolerated, since there is legal recourse through civil lawsuits of slander and libel. Slander is a lot harder to prove since it's just spoken, libel is any damaging lies published to a permanent media like a newspaper or tv ad.
What is the specific line they cannot cross?