Let presidential candidates sue one another for libel

Politicians seeking the White House would mind their own mudslinging if they knew they could be sued.

from the March 16, 2007 edition

Page 2 of 2

Page 1 | 2

This little exemption would allow a presidential candidate who deems himself or herself directly slandered by another candidate to sue that person for defamation. That way, we pit the defamed against the defamer, and the press is left out of it.

Imagine that John McCain, or one of the ads he approves, says something particularly disparaging about Barack Obama. We would get Obama v. McCain – in a court, under oath. Or suppose Hillary Clinton, or one of her ads, says something especially critical of Rudy Giuliani. We would get Giuliani v. Clinton in court, under oath. Or we might get Edwards v. Romney in court and under oath.

With expedited trials prior to Tuesday Nov. 4, 2008, the American electorate would get what no political action committee, Federal Election Commission, or editorial board is able to elicit reliably – candidates swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Plus, candidates (and their slandermeisters) would face pecuniary peril. They would have to pay hefty legal fees and run expensive retractions for any malicious falsehoods.

Run a negative ad as a presidential candidate, and you run the risk of a negative verdict prior to Election Day.

In a court of law, the dissembling and evasiveness and sidestepping (which are the hallmarks of so many utterances by politicians) would be interrogated, exposed, and legally challenged. The alleged defamers would have to produce real evidence and sworn testimony to back up their aspersions.

With presidential candidates under oath, we might actually get some truth – and consequences for those politicians who deserve them.

• Joseph H. Cooper was editorial counsel at The New Yorker from 1976 to 1996. He now teaches media law and ethics at Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Conn.

1 | Page 2