U.S. Supreme Court,
Constitutional Law
Jun. 20, 2014
Best test for campaign speech is ballot box
In a recent U.S. high court ruling, Justice Thomas noted that there were two threats constituting cause for concern under an Ohio law limiting campaign speech: administrative action and criminal prosecution.
Charles S. Doskow
Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law
University of La Verne College of Law
Email: dosklaw@aol.com
Harvard Law School
Charles is a past president of the Inland Empire Chapter of the Federal Bar Association, and in 2012 was awarded the chapter's Erwin Chemerinsky Defender of the Constitution award.
Ohio has a statute (as do other states) that provides both administrative and criminal remedies against persons knowingly making false statements to influence an election. Claims are filed with the state Elections Commission, which must investigate and adjudicate. During the 2010 election season, Ohio Rep. Steven Driehaus, running for reelection, filed a claim against a pro-life advocacy group, the Susan B. Anthony List (SBAL), asserting that it had sponsored advertisements opposing his ...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In