Under the Radar Blog Archives Select Date… August, 2020 July, 2020 June, 2020 May, 2020 April, 2020 March, 2020 February, 2020 January, 2020 December, 2019 November, 2019 October, 2019 September, 2019

Supreme Court takes political ads case

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case delving into the government's right to police alleged lies in political advertising.

The high court announced Friday afternoon that it will take up a lawsuit filed by Susan B. Anthony List, a national anti-abortion advocacy group that sought to run political ads against then-Rep. Steven Driehaus (D-Ohio).

During the 2010 election cycle, Susan B. Anthony List accused Driehaus of voting in favor of taxpayer-funded abortions by supporting President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

Driehaus then complained to the Ohio state election commission, alleging that the proposed billboard campaign ad was false and violated the state law. The Affordable Care Act requires abortion to be paid for through non-ACA accounts and federal law bars taxpayer money from funding abortions.

The proposed billboard would have read: “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.”

Susan B. Anthony List denies that the ads were false — but is challenging the overall constitutionality of the restrictions on false political speech. The group also successfully beat back defamation lawsuit filed by Driehaus in 2013.

“This lawsuit originated with the now ongoing problem of taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamacare. Driehaus was originally opposed to the Affordable Care Act because it did not contain specific language preventing the funding of abortion,” said SBA president Marjorie Dannenfelser in a Friday statement.

“That never changed and to this very day, Americans are still fighting the expansion of taxpayer funding of abortion brought about by the overhaul. After Driehaus and other naïve ‘pro-life’ Democrats caved, SBA List sought to inform constituents of their votes for taxpayer funding of abortion,” said Dannenfelser.

The Driehaus campaign argued that the SBA ad ran afoul of the Ohio False Statement Law that makes it illegal to "post, publish, circulate, distribute, or otherwise disseminate a false statement concerning a candidate, either knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not, if the statement is designed to promote the election, nomination, or defeat of the candidate."

Driehaus was defeated for re-election in 2010 and withdrew his complaint with the Ohio Election Commission before the case could be heard by the panel.

While the complaint was awaiting a hearing, SBA and the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes filed federal lawsuits saying that the Ohio law was unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

A federal District court tossed the lawsuits in 2011 saying that SBA hadn’t suffered any harm and therefore had no standing to bring the suit. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the lower court in mid-2013.

The case could be heard as early as April with a decision by the end of the court's term in June.

The outcome of the case is likely to turn on SBA List's standing to bring a lawsuit challenging the Ohio law. It's not clear whether the justices will choose, at this juncture, to pass on the constitutionality of Ohio's political-advertising law.

UPDATE (Friday, 4:12 P.M.): This post has been updated to clarify the likely timing of court action.

UPDATE (Monday, 4:35 P.M.): This post and the accompanying headline have been changed to clarify that the case at the high court is likely to turn on procedural issues.