In a prior post, we reported upon the institution of legal actions in the midst of two high-profile U.S. Senate campaigns. There were important developments in both matters yesterday.
As we reported, Kay Hagan instituted an action over a political ad run by North Carolina incumbent Elizabeth Dole. Hagan, who ultimately won the race, filed a document in North Carolina state court contending that Dole's ad contained defamatory statements about her. Yesterday, Hagan filed papers with the court dismissing her claim.
In Minnesota, incumbent Norm Coleman filed suit over a political ad run by his challenger, Al Franken. The race for Coleman's seat remains uncalled, with Coleman maintaining a razor-thin 206 vote lead as the recount process begins. Yesterday, an administrative law judge in Minnesota entered an order dismissing Coleman's complaint, a decision she reached after conducting a probable cause hearing on November 7, 2008.
In the order, the judge ultimately concluded that there "is not probable cause to believe [Franken] violated Minn. Stat. s. 211B.06," which prohibits a person from disseminating a false political advertisement that the person knows is false or is reckless as to its truth. The decision examined a statement in the ad that Coleman had been "ranked the fourth most corrupt Senator in Washington" by an organization called the "Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Government," (The administrative law judge had previously concluded that another statement Coleman challenged, that he is "living almost rent free in a million dollar home of a Washington insider," fell outside the purview of the statute because it constituted opinion and could not be proved true or false).
The statement at issue was drawn from report prepared by the organization that named "the 20 most corrupt members of Congress." The report also named four "dishonorable mentions," a list that included Coleman. The list of twenty included three Senators, and Coleman was the only Senator among the "dishonorable mentions." Neither list included numerals or any numbering scheme. Coleman contended the statement in the ad that he was the "fourth most corrupt Senator" was false because he was not included on the organization's list of "20 most corrupt" members of Congress. Coleman also pointed to a statement from the executive director of the organization that her group does not actually rank the persons on the list. In response, Franken contended the statement was true because, as the executive director acknowledged, "96 other senators did not make the list at all." Coleman also challenged the ad's characterization of the organization as a "bipartisan watchdog group," contending the group instead was "liberal leaning."
In concluding that Coleman had failed to establish probable cause of a statutory violation, the judge found the statement in the ad to be "substantially accurate, if not literally true in every detail." According to the judge
[B]ased on the reference in CREW's Executive Summary to the 'list of 24,' there is an objective basis for the inference drawn in the Franken advertisement that Senator Coleman was the fourth Senator on the overall list of 24.
The judge also rejected Coleman's claim with respect to the characterization of CREW as a "bipartisan watchdog organization" on the grounds that it did not relate to the personal or political character of Coleman and, in any event, it constituted a non-actionable statement of opinion. Given her conclusion that Coleman had failed to demonstrate the ad contained an actionably false statement about Coleman, it was unnecessary for her to address whether Franken acted recklessly or with knowledge of falsity.
Coleman has the right to seek reconsideration of the decision.
Add a comment
Archives
- January 2022
- June 2021
- March 2020
- August 2019
- March 2019
- October 2018
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- February 2016
- November 2015
- September 2015
- July 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- July 2014
- March 2014
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- November 2011
- September 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2006
- February 2006
Recent Posts
- Rethinking Your Cyber Insurance Needs as Your Workplace Evolves
- Data Breach Defense for Educational Institutions
- COVID-19 and the Increased Cybersecurity Risk in a Work-From-Home World
- Like Incorporating Facebook into your Website? EU Decision Raises New Issues
- Lessons Learned: Key Takeaways for Every Business from the Capital One Data Breach
- Will Quick Talks to WRAL About Privacy Issues Related to Doorbell Cameras
- About Us
- Not in My House - California to Regulate IoT Device Security
- Ninth Circuit Says You’re Going to Jail for Visiting That Website without Permission
- Ninth Circuit Interprets “Without Authorization” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Topics
- Data Security
- Data Breach
- Privacy
- Defamation
- Public Records
- Cyberattack
- FCC Matters
- Reporters Privilege
- Political Advertising
- Newsroom Subpoenas
- Shield Laws
- Internet
- Miscellaneous
- Digital Media and Data Privacy Law
- Indecency
- First Amendment
- Anti-SLAPP Statutes
- Fair Report Privilege
- Prior Restraints
- Wiretapping
- Access to Courtrooms
- Education
- FOIA
- HIPAA
- Drone Law
- Access to Court Dockets
- Access to Search Warrants
- Intrusion
- First Amendment Retaliation
- Mobile Privacy
- Newsroom Search Warrants
- About This Blog
- Disclaimer
- Services