By Craig Hatkoff and Irwin Kula
August 17, 2024
GLOSSARY:
–FACT- Factually Accurate Claim of Truth
–FICT- Factually Inaccurate Claim of Truth
–FUCT- Factually Unverifiable Claim of Truth
–OUTRIGHT LIE– Factually Ridiculous Claim of Truth
In the United States, political lies have become a central feature of public life, and trust in democratic institutions has plunged to historic lows. The cascade of misinformation—spanning everything from fabricated election results to distorted policy claims—has left citizens questioning the integrity of our political system. For years, this flood of falsehoods has gone largely unchecked, eroding the foundations of democracy itself. It’s time to draw a line. Just as we regulate financial markets to protect consumers and maintain trust in the economy, we should implement an SEC-style body to penalize outright factual lies in politics. This approach, focused narrowly on verifiable factual claims, offers a path forward for restoring trust in our political process.
The Parallel Between Finance and Politics
The financial world offers a compelling precedent for how lies can be regulated without stifling the freedom to debate, predict, or speculate. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) plays a crucial role in ensuring that companies do not deceive investors. Companies are allowed to make forward-looking statements—projections, forecasts, and opinions—but they are required to be truthful about established facts. Misleading investors about current or past realities is met with strict penalties. This model provides a blueprint for how we can preserve free speech while introducing accountability for political lies.
A Focus on Factual Accuracy, Not Opinions
Critics often argue that regulating political speech would violate the First Amendment and suppress free expression. However, this concern conflates two very different kinds of speech: opinions and factual claims. Political debate thrives on the exchange of opinions, interpretations, and predictions. Disagreements about tax policy, healthcare reform, or foreign relations are the lifeblood of a democratic society. But the deliberate spread of factual falsehoods—such as claiming millions of illegal votes were cast or that an opponent was born in another country—is not a legitimate part of this debate. Such lies are not interpretations or predictions; they are assertions about reality that can be verified and should be held to a standard of truth.
Under the proposed model, politicians and candidates would remain free to argue for or against policies, project the impact of their proposals, and critique their opponents’ views. What would be regulated is only factual claims that are objectively false and demonstrably harmful. For instance, a candidate could say, “I believe my plan will reduce unemployment,” even if that prediction is debatable. But if they claim, “Unemployment has doubled under my opponent’s leadership” when it has in fact decreased, they would be subject to penalties for spreading a falsehood about a verifiable fact.
Rebuilding Trust Through Accountability
The consequences of unchecked political lying have been catastrophic. Public trust in government has plummeted to record lows. According to Pew Research, only 20% of Americans trust the government to do what is right most of the time, a sharp decline from previous decades. Meanwhile, trust in election results, the media, and even basic facts has eroded, leading to increased polarization and violent confrontations. The January 6th Capitol riot was fueled by persistent lies about the 2020 election, demonstrating that the costs of allowing misinformation to run rampant are no longer theoretical—they are manifest in our streets.
An SEC-like body for politics could begin the long process of restoring trust. By establishing a clear distinction between protected political speech and deceptive factual claims, such a body would send a message that truth still matters in public discourse. Penalties for repeated falsehoods—ranging from fines to public corrections—would serve as a deterrent for those who currently see no downside in spreading misinformation.
How It Would Work: Lessons from the SEC
The SEC’s model for regulating forward-looking statements offers a clear framework for how a political equivalent might operate. The key lies in differentiating between speculative, predictive statements and those grounded in current or past facts. For instance, if a politician claims that their tax plan “will create millions of jobs,” this falls under the realm of prediction and would not be subject to regulation. However, if they claim that their opponent’s tax policy has “led to the highest unemployment in 50 years” when this is factually untrue, they would face consequences.
The fact-checking process would need to be rigorous, transparent, and impartial. An independent body—composed of experts in law, media, and political science—could be tasked with verifying claims. This body would not pass judgment on political opinions or policy preferences but would focus narrowly on statements that are factually incorrect and easily verifiable. For instance, they could investigate claims about vote counts, economic data, or the content of specific laws and policies.
Once a false claim is identified, the politician or campaign responsible would be required to issue a correction or face penalties. Just as companies must file corrected earnings reports if they mislead investors, politicians would need to retract false statements publicly. Repeated offenses could lead to escalating consequences, such as fines, limits on campaign funding, or even temporary restrictions on public communication channels.
The Challenges and Criticisms
No system is without challenges, and this proposal is no exception. One major concern is the potential for bias. Critics might argue that any regulatory body tasked with policing political speech could be influenced by partisan agendas. To mitigate this risk, the body would need to operate with strict safeguards against bias, including diverse representation from across the political spectrum and transparent decision-making processes. Additionally, a robust appeals process would ensure that decisions can be contested, preventing one-sided enforcement.
Another concern is the chilling effect on political speech. Critics may worry that politicians will become overly cautious, avoiding certain claims for fear of penalties. However, the focus on factual accuracy—not opinions or rhetorical flourishes—means that political debate and persuasion would remain vibrant. Politicians would still have ample room to argue their positions, project future outcomes, and critique their opponents. The regulation would only target false factual claims that can be clearly disproven.
Finally, some argue that voters should be the ultimate arbiters of truth in a democracy. While it’s true that informed citizens are vital to a functioning democracy, the sheer volume of misinformation today makes it difficult for voters to discern fact from fiction. Just as consumers rely on the SEC to protect them from financial fraud, voters could benefit from a system that curbs deliberate deception in the political arena. Democracy works best when citizens are making choices based on accurate information, not lies.
A Realistic Path Forward
Implementing this model would require careful planning and broad consensus. The first step would be a pilot program that focuses on the most blatant and harmful lies. For example, false claims about election integrity, public health, or major economic indicators could be prioritized. The goal would be to demonstrate the effectiveness of the system in curbing misinformation without stifling legitimate political debate.
The next step would be establishing the legal framework. While regulating political speech has historically been met with judicial resistance, focusing narrowly on verifiable factual claims could overcome some of these hurdles. The key would be to clearly define what constitutes a factual falsehood versus an opinion or prediction, drawing on existing legal standards for defamation, fraud, and truth-in-advertising laws.
Public education would also be crucial. Citizens need to understand that this isn’t about policing opinions or stifling dissent—it’s about holding politicians accountable for lies that have real-world consequences. Just as we accept that financial markets require oversight to function fairly, we must recognize that political markets need similar protections against fraud and deception.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Truth in Politics
The unchecked rise of political lies has brought us to a tipping point. Democracy cannot survive if truth is no longer a shared value. An SEC for politics, focused narrowly on penalizing false factual claims, offers a way to rebuild trust without compromising free speech. By holding politicians accountable for the lies they tell, we can begin to restore integrity to our political process and ensure that voters are equipped to make informed decisions based on truth, not deception.
The time for handwringing is over. We need to recognize that democracy is at stake and take concrete steps to protect it. Regulating lies in politics isn’t a threat to free speech—it’s a necessary defense of truth, trust, and democracy itself.
