Tuesday, Sept. 17, 2002 | 8:58 a.m.
In the early 1990s the truthfulness of campaign mailings became a major issue in Southern Nevada. Many candidates were claiming that their voting records and other facts about their personal and public lives were being distorted in mass mailings sent to voters in their districts. It was easy to sympathize with their complaints -- that the voting public was getting cheated every time a liar got elected. The issue became so heated that the 1997 Legislature enacted laws to clean up the campaigns.
It's the state's responsibility to oversee elections and therefore the state has a right to impose standards, argued those who supported laws setting the boundaries for what could be said about candidates. This argument prevailed and laws were passed outlawing malicious lies about candidates and setting an expedient timetable for the Nevada State Ethics Commission to hear complaints and issue rulings. Violators could be fined up to $5,000.
Last week the Nevada Press Association, of which the Las Vegas Sun is a member, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed a federal lawsuit opposing the state's so-called "speech police." The two organizations present compelling arguments that any law giving the state authority over what can be written or said during a campaign violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech for individuals, including members of the press. A year ago the editor of the High Desert Advocate in West Wendover was the focus of an Ethics Commission probe because of what he wrote about a mayoral candidate in an editorial.
The state legislation is an example of what can happen if reasonable-sounding arguments and pressing motivations are not checked against the restraints on government that are embedded in the Constitution. Of course, malicious lies are abhorrent, but the act of ordering individuals and members of the press before a state commission, because someone complained about what they wrote or said, is far worse. The latest complaint regarding the veracity of campaign statements was filed with the Ethics Commission by Earlene Forsythe, who claims her loss in the Sept. 3 Republican primary for the Assembly District 37 seat was caused by untruthful mailings and telephone messages. Candidates who feel victimized by lies have recourse in the courts. That's time consuming, of course. For immediate rebuttals, although it's not perfect, the answer is far simpler. They too a re free to speak out.
archive
