Liars can too work on campaigns

Colorado law probably unconstitutional

Published May 2, 2006 at midnight

Text size  

• 0 Comments
• Email
• Print

So Dick Leggitt, Marc Holtzman's campaign manager, admitted last week that he made up poll numbers last fall out of thin air.

Then he fed them to the media to show that Holtzman's name identification had skyrocketed while attacking Referendum C. Leggitt, testifying at a hearing, defended the false information as "spin."

Leggitt's admission has prompted outrage in Republican rival Bob Beauprez's camp, which insists that the bogus poll information was a lie that is punishable by law. What's more, Leggitt should be fired, they say.

Colorado law says no person may "knowingly" make a false statement "designed to affect the vote" for anyone running for public office.

We have a somewhat different take on this matter.

If Holtzman wants to employ someone who lies to the press in such brazen fashion, that's his business. Journalists will adjust their reports depending on whether they feel they can trust anything he now says. For some, the answer will be no.

But as for there being an obligation to fire Leggitt, that's nonsense. The Colorado law is - or at least should be - unconstitutional. You can't outlaw false campaign rhetoric, intentional or not. Indeed, we can hardly think of anything more destructive to free speech than inviting courts to rule on political truthfulness and honesty.

Leggitt's unusual admission came out of an ongoing hearing on a complaint filed by lobbyist Steve Durham against Holtzman involving another law that should be junked.

Durham alleges there was an illegal connection between Holtzman's campaign against Ref C last fall - "If C Wins You Lose" - and his nascent campaign for governor. But even if there was - and the court hasn't ruled yet - why should that be illegal? Why should the public care?

Holtzman appeared in a TV ad attacking Ref C, a 2005 issue campaign in which there were no contribution limits. But those ads did not mention he was running for governor. Why shouldn't a candidate enjoy the same free-speech rights to support or oppose a statewide referendum as any other citizen - whether or not it elevates his public profile?

Durham's complaint, of course, is nothing more than a partisan - make that intrapartisan - squabble. He's an avowed supporter of Beauprez. The law violations he alleged just happen to be convenient cudgels with which to bludgeon the opponent.

Speaking of coordination, is Durham working with Beauprez? He says he's not. But who's paying his legal fees? Durham said that's attorney-client privilege.

The no-lying law is worse than useless. The no-coordination law is a straitjacket on free speech. Candidates should compete on the campaign trail, not in the courtroom.

Featured

• 2008 Voter’s Guide

  

  Use our Ballot Builder tool to compare your viewpoints to the candidates.

• A Dozen on Denver

  

  Sandra Dallas wrote 'Lennie's tavern' for our ongoing fiction series. Check it out!

• Rocky Multimedia

  

  The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on today's events.

• Bronco Dean's rant

  

  Listen to Bronco Dean's totally biased pregame rant about the Broncos-Jaguars game.

• Presidential Elections

  

  See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.

• County election profiles

  

  A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.

• A dream fulfilled

  

  A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production

• Latest from Dove Valley

  

  Click for more broncos videos.

• Sam Adams' Open Mic

  

  No. 44 means a lot to Floyd Little