Why you see political commercials on television that contain statements that are not true

CINCINNATI (WKRC) – We're on track to experience the most expensive election in history.

Political analysis firm Open Secrets predicted nearly $16 billion will be spent on federal campaigns, topping the 2020 record by about $1 billion. Most money is spent on television advertising, and many of these advertisements have been criticized for containing misleading or completely untrue claims. Why are these ads legal?

They're definitely going fast and furious, like in the Ohio race for U.S. Senate. The conservative political action committee The Senate Leadership Fund's anti-Sherrod Brown ad said: “Brown has voted multiple times to allow biological transgender men to participate in girls' sports.” Brown supported allowing underage children to undergo gender reassignment surgery to enable.

Or the liberal Senate Majority PAC's anti-Bernie Moreno ad that says, “How did Bernie Moreno make millions?” His family used their political connections to get rich off our tax dollars. Moreno’s powerful Colombian family funneled our money to Latin American banks for so-called development projects – projects in which his family invested millions.”

The complaint against Sherrod Brown is misleading at best, citing roll call votes that do not directly support the claims. And the claims in the complaint against Bernie Moreno are either unfounded or based on exaggerated information from an AP article. Why can politicians and their supporters make wild or untrue claims in their advertisements?

“About 15 years ago, in a case called Alvarez, the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that some intentional lies are protected by the First Amendment,” said Ken Katkin, a law professor at Northern Kentucky University.

He said that in the Alvarez case, the government should not punish a person for knowingly lying without proving actual harm. This ruling paved the way for a federal court to overturn Ohio's Truth in Political Law.

“(It) ruled that this state law was unconstitutional and that people cannot be prosecuted for making false statements in political campaigns,” Katkin said.

He said that in the Alvaraz decision, the U.S. Supreme Court assumed that it should not be up to the government to determine what is true and what is not.

“And it was also thought that some types of lies could be socially beneficial, things like false flattery or white lies,” Katkin said. “If you want to tell me how nice my tie is, maybe that should be protected.”

So the federal government is leaving it up to voters to decide what is true and what is not.

None of the PACs that paid for the ads highlighted in this story responded to Local 12's request for comment.