Truth and campaign speech

Back in the late 1990s, state Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio championed legislation empowering the state Ethics Commission to investigate complaints about negative political campaigning.

The result was a state Truth Squad that had the power to fine candidates as much as $30,000 for untruthful campaign advertising. The mischief that ensued was entirely predictable.

For instance, Bob Beers, now a state senator, was fined $5,000 in 1998 for a truthful yet “misleading” advertisement targeting a primary opponent during a run for the Assembly.

He never paid the fine — and a federal judge in 2005 rejected the Raggio provision as an infringement on the First Amendment. After that, lawmakers repealed the law.

It appears however, that news of this constitutional fiasco never reached Washington state.

Under the guise of preserving the integrity of the election process, Washington created a similar “truth squad” back in 1999. Three years later, it fined Green Party candidate Marilou Rickert $1,000 for circulating campaign materials that contained untruths about her opponent.

Like Mr. Beers in Nevada, Ms. Rickert refused to meekly accept her punishment. And on Thursday, the Washington Supreme Court came down on the side of the Constitution by tossing out the law and ruling that it’s not the government’s job to regulate political speech.

Proponents of the law argue the ruling will allow politicians to lie with impunity. But as the court pointed out, the law “exempts all statements made by a candidate or his supporters about himself. Basically, a candidate is free to lie about himself, while an opponent will be sanctioned.”

Indeed.

Candidates who feel they have been unfairly attacked can avail themselves of current libel statutes. But we get into dangerous territory when government agents are charged with vetting campaign speech.

The Washington high court made the correct call.