Lies, BS, and Campaign Ads
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
I was driving my 7 year old to school the other day and she commented on an ad she saw on TV. Basically, she said she wouldn't vote for one of the candidates because she heard he wanted to get rid of social security and she didn't think that was fair. While I agreed that wasn't fair, I also pointed out that most claims in ads are not true, or at least only partially true.
This year is no exception. If you are unlucky enough to live in the Mid-Michigan Area, you probably have seen the ads for Mark Schauer and Tim Walberg. I would seriously consider not voting for either of them based on how bad those ads are. That being said, they are not all that unusual. We are often treted to negative ads where one candidate distorts the record and positions of their opponent. Fortunately, a voter has some fact checking resources and can see what is what with a minimal amount of effort.
This isn't always the case. In the last few weeks, I have started to see ads for the Michigan Supreme Court. They started off with the typical "tough on crime" and "fair and just" type. Michigan, unfortunately, has s system where we elect the Supreme Court for a fixed term. The Court gets little coverage and I would guess that most people couldn't name a single Justice. Most people that are running just try and get their name out and hope that voters will remember come election time. Another interesting aspect of our state is that Justices are non-partisan. While this seems like a good idea, both parties still claim their candidates and run ads. In addition, a variety of other advocacy groups run ads.
These ads are especially annoying because they rely on people's ignorance of how the State Supreme Court works and present an overly simplistic view. They will take a case where a Justice may have supported the free speech rights of some obnoxious bigot and say that it shows the Justice supports the bigot. This is simply not true and is grossly unfair.
There is an ad that is being run against candidate Bob Young that was paid for by several environmental groups. I couldn't find that ad, but found a very similar one that was put out by the Michigan Democratic Party. Here it is:
Holy Shit! Bob Young would let polluters off the hook. That isn't good and voters certainly deserve to know if he would, or did, do this. The TV ad focuses mostly on the claim that Young would prevent citizens from being able to sue a company that perpetrated some major BP-style disaster. In support of this, they list a case at the bottom of the screen in tiny print, MCWC v. Nestle, 479 Mich 280 (2007). I was skeptical and wondered if this case could show that Young was as bad as the ad says.
The above mentioned case deals with an environmental group that sued Nestle to enjoin them from operating a bottled water plant in Michigan. I remember when this was going on and it was controversial. The rather dull 36 page case boils down to a question of standing. Young basically said that in regards to one of the lakes, the plaintiffs did not have standing and could not proceed. Standing is legal principal that goes back hundreds of years and was the topic of many of the first cases heard by the US Supreme Court. It has been well litigated and is very well established. In order to have standing, a plaintiff must establish 3 things:
1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized. The injury must be actual or imminent, distinct and palpable, not abstract. This injury could be economic as well as non-economic.
2. Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court.
3. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury.
Young said that the plaintiff did not satisfy the first requirement. The facts showed that none of the plaintiffs lived on or near the lake in question, so that they could not have suffered any injury. What the group should have done was add a plaintiff that lived on that lake. There is a ton of case law that supports Young's conclusion and it is not an area of law that is all that novel. In other words, Young most likely made the right decision that was supported by past cases, both at the state and federal level.
Young may very well be a tool of corporations, but this ad is deceptive and misleading. I have a hard time making the leap from that decision to say that he would allow polluters to have a free ride. I should note that I am in no way endorsing Bob Young, nor do I want to just pick on the people that oppose him. I would like to point out that if you are going to vote for a Supreme Court Justice, you should be basing your decision on logic and reason, not BS conjecture.
