Supreme Court okays pro-life challenge to Ohio election speech law

[theHandpuppet]

Catholic News Agency
Washington D.C., Jun 18, 2014
(CNA/EWTN News)

Supreme Court okays pro-life challenge to Ohio election speech law

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday that the Susan B. Anthony List has standing to challenge an Ohio law allowing a state agency to bar the group from putting up billboards saying a political candidate supported abortion funding.

“We are optimistic that the district court will rule quickly and will side with the First Amendment, so that we may proceed in Ohio – without fear of prosecution – with our ongoing efforts to inform voters that their elected representatives voted for taxpayer funded abortion,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said June 16.

The group attempted to set up billboards in Ohio in 2010, arguing that then-U.S. Rep. Steve Driehaus had supported taxpayer funded abortion by voting for the Affordable Care Act.

Driehaus filed a criminal complaint with the Ohio elections commission under a state law which bars making false statements about a candidate or public official’s voting records.... MORE at http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/supreme-court-okays-pro-life-challenge-to-ohio-election-speech-law-49634/

[awake]

1. Can Susan B. Anthony List and its donors be then sued for libel?

[theHandpuppet]

2. Actually, it appears not

There is (was) a law on the Ohio books that outlaws campaign lies but that was challenged by the Susan B. Anthony List. The SC decision I reported in the OP was in response to their challenge to the Ohio law. Here's a report on the initial challenge filed by the SBA List:

The Cleveland Plain Dealer
U.S. Supreme Court will allow constitutional challenge of Ohio law that bars campaign lies
By Sabrina Eaton, Plain Dealer Washington Reporter

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled today that an anti-abortion group can challenge the constitutionality of an Ohio law that bars lies about politicians during an election.

The Susan B. Anthony List in April told the Supreme Court that the law, which allows citizens to file complaints about untruthful statements with Ohio's Election Commission, chills free speech before elections.

"The threatened proceedings are of particular concern because of the burden they impose on electoral speech," said the decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. "Moreover, the target of a complaint may be forced to divert significant time and resources to hire legal counsel and respond to discovery requests in the crucial days before an election."

The case stemmed from an ad the group placed that accused former Cincinnati-area Democratic congressman Steve Driehaus of voting for "taxpayer-funded abortion" by backing the Affordable Care Act....

MORE at http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/06/us_supreme_court_will_allow_co.html

[awake]

3. what is to stop Steve Driehaus from suing today

Until we hit back hard where at what they treasure i.e. their money this shit will not stop

[theHandpuppet]

4. Driehaus withdrew his challenge when he lost to Chabot

Since the law about libelous campaign ads was specific to Ohio and I don't know how many states have such laws, it would be up to other candidates being targeted by this campaign, one that the Susan B. Anthony list plans to take nationwide in targeting pro-choice Democrats.

I'm afraid someone with a much better understanding of the law would have to explain whether the SC decision regarding Ohio set a precedence or if candidates in other states could still file a complaint.