Would this be constitutional?

[47of74]

A couple years ago when Palin was running around accusing then candidate Obama of palling around with terrorists I wondered if we should require candidates for office to agree to a code of ethics if they wish to receive public funding, the use of public lands / facilities, and any assistance from public employees (including police/military).

Such as not accusing your opponent of crimes without evidence (and taking any evidence of improper activities to law enforcement first), not doing anything that could be seen as advocating violence against anyone - especially your opponent, nor behaving in an intimidating manner, and not allow anyone who does so to work for you. Make it so that those who want to go down to the gutters can still do so with attack ads, and those who really want to go in to the sewers can still do so but lose their access to the things mentioned above.

And now with the Tucson terrorist attack I remembered that I had wondered about that. Would such a thing be constitutional?

[onenote]

1. it would have a pretty chilling effect on speech

There would be endless disputes over whether the "code" had been violated. It would effectively impose a prior restraint on speech. Its one thing to require candidates to "approve" an ad, as the law does now. A much different thing to regulate the content of the ad.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. Worrisome that you think it's even remotely possible that your idea might be constitutional. n/t

[valerief]

3. Imagine if candidates were required to not lie. That would be a biggie! nt

[onenote]

4. imagine if the party in power got to appoint the judges that would decide

whether the candidates from the other party were lying.

Doesn't sound so appealing any more, does it?

[valerief]

5. Judges don't get appointed any more. They get NOed by Congress. nt

[Tumbulu]

6. I like the idea very much! (nt)