Politico has the story about tomorrow's oral arguments before the Supreme Court on a fascinating case involving an Ohio law that forbids campaign ads from stating things the ads' sponsors know to be false. At issue is an ad campaign directed against then-Congressman Steve Driehaus by the Susan B. Anthony List that claimed Dreihaus supported taxpayer funded abortions because he voted for the Affordable Care Act. The trial court held that, on its face, the ACA does not provide such funding. The Supreme Court could dodge the bigger issues by deciding SBA does not have standing to being the suit, but I hope the justices decide the case on the merits. Our Congress and the states regulate all sorts of products, insisting that advertising be based on truthful claims. But, political speech is different, not only because the Roberts' court thinks money is speech and that tons of it does not corrupt the political system. Stay tuned.
NCR Email Alerts
Sign up to get NCR updates by email. Existing users: change your preferences here. Enter your email address in the box below and click “Go.”
In This Issue
- Editorial: Take Amoris Laetitia's challenge seriously
- Nondiscrimination laws merit church support
- Mercy turns the world upside down
- Special Section (in print only): Summer Books
Some articles are only available in the print newspaper and Kindle edition.
by Kieran Tapsell Examining the Crisis