On the way in to work this morning, I heard the radio version of this story on NPR regarding Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, which will be argued before the Supreme Court today.

The case itself is a challenge to an Ohio law prohibiting individuals or groups from knowingly or recklessly making false statements in political campaigns, stemming from a 2010 attempt by The Susan B. Anthony List, a conservative anti-abortion group, to launch a campaign against a Democratic congressman claiming he voted for taxpayer-funded abortion, when, in fact, he did not. The congressional campaign appealed to the state Elections Commission, citing the law barring false campaign statements. The billboards never went up, not because of any particular legal challenge, but because the billboard company refused the group’s business (presumably because of the controversy).

The Susan B. Anthony List then challenged the law, stating that it “demonstrates complete disregard for the Constitutional right of people to criticize their elected officials,” though the challenge was dismissed because the campaign never actually happened. Appeals happened, and the case eventually ended up in before the US Supreme Court.

So, we end up here: The Supreme Court of the United States is today hearing serious arguments about and is being asked to rule on whether being able to knowingly lie about someone is protected by the US Constitution.

Now, I’m generally very supportive of First Amendment rights, though I’m not entirely sure I’m okay with the idea that it might, in fact, be perfectly legal to make up false statements about one’s opponents in order to win a political campaign. Such a ruling would irrepairably sunder any integrity left in America’s already questionable political processes. It would become even more difficult to become informed regarding one’s options when deciding who to vote for, as it would become nigh impossible to separate truth from blatant falsehood (which is already difficult enough). In elections for public office, there really needs to be some basic standard of honesty and truthfulness; sadly, we need laws such as the one being challenged, as so many interested parties have no particular compunction about misrepresentation in the interest of winning. Machiavelli, however much his philosophies are lauded by type-A personalities in business and politics, is simply not democracy.

One wonders what exactly what sort of logic drove the Susan B. Anthony List to publically challenge this law. Leaving aside my personal feelings about the List’s cause, I can’t help but to think about how such an action would affect an individual or group’s long-term credibility, which one would think is an important commodity for anyone in the advocacy business. If someone feels they have to sue for the right to lie in order to make one’s case effectively, they’re basically admitting that their position can’t stand on it’s own factual merits.

Really, what does it say about you or your cause if you have admit you have to make stuff up to gain support? I can’t see this challenge, whatever the outcome, working well for the group or its allies.