Are there any restrictions at all on what can be said in a campaign ad? If a candidate runs an ad

[Atticus]

on TV which includes known-to-be-false accusations of scandalous conduct by his opponent, 1.) must the network run the ad, and, 2.) Is there any remedy for the victim other than spending the money to rebut the lie?

[elleng]

1. Networks never 'must' run anything,

unless they have contracts which force them to do so; nothing in the law forces such.

Victim's remedy: SUING for defamation.

[Atticus]

4. My understanding is that a defamation action by a candidate requires that he or she

plead and prove "actual malice" as the motivation for the false ad, which is usually next to impossible.

I may be wrong. Any practicing tort lawyers ou there?

[elleng]

6. Defamation IS difficult, for public figures.

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Public vs. Private Figures

https://www.nationwideconsumerrights.com/public-vs-private-figures.html

[CincyDem]

5. I do, however, believe that once they sell the spot they have no editorial control.

They have FCC obscenity regs to follow but other than that, I don't think they have the right to edit content.

IIRC, there was a recent ad that ran nationally and there were a lot of local stations that disagreed with the content so they used 15 seconds of their local time to provide a disclaimer aired locally. Don't remember the specific issue but that was out that.

[onenote]

8. you are mistaken. See post #7

[CincyDem]

2. Not sure about TV, but...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_B._Anthony_List_v._Driehaus

Lots of complicated up and down the judicial chain from the Ohio Election Commission to SCOTUS. In the end, the short version - yeah, they can lie.

Key phrase from the lower court decision after SCOTUS remanded it back for a new hearing:

"We do not want the government (i.e., the Ohio Elections Commission) deciding what is political truth — for fear that the government might persecute those who criticize it. Instead, in a democracy, the voters should decide."

[brooklynite]

3. "Congress shall make no law....."

[onenote]

7. Broadcast stations are expressly barred from "censoring" political ads in certain situations

Whether a station can censor or refuse a political oriented ad depends on a variety of factors. In general, under 47 usc 315, if a station runs an ad from a legally qualified candidate for any public office, the station must afford "equal opportunities" to all other candidates for the same office. This applies only to "uses" by a candidate -- in other words, it has to be an ad run by the candidate, not by a PAC or other third party group. The law expressly states that stations have "no power of censorship" over ads that are broadcast under the equal opportunities rule. And while the general rule is that a station can decide not to run any political ads (thereby avoiding the equal opportunities and no censorship rules), stations can be subject to penalties/license revocation if they willfully or repeatedly fail to allow "reasonable access" to or permit purchase of reasonable amounts of time by a legally qualified candidate for federal office.