Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Need for a Truth in Politics Law: De-Frauding American Politics

Opinion

Illustration of someone holding a strainer, and the words "fakes," "facts," "news," etc. going through it.

Trump-era misinformation has pushed American politics to a breaking point. A Truth in Politics law may be needed to save democracy.

Getty Images, SvetaZi

“Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?” With those words in 1954, Army lawyer Joseph Welch took Senator Joe McCarthy to task and helped end McCarthy’s destructive un-American witch hunt. The time has come to say the same to Donald Trump and his MAGA allies and stop their vile perversion of our right to free speech.

American politics has always been rife with misleading statements and, at times, outright falsehoods. Mendacity just seems to be an ever-present aspect of politics. But with the ascendency of Trump, and especially this past year, things have taken an especially nasty turn, becoming so aggressive and incendiary as to pose a real threat to the health and well-being of our nation’s democracy.


The slide into a more aggressive misinformation campaign began during Obama's presidency. Republicans such as Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and yes, Donald Trump, promoted outrageous claims against Obama—and many Republicans believed them. A CBS/New York Times poll in 2011 found that 25% of all Americans and 45% of Republicans thought that Barack Obama was not a U.S. citizen. The health care reform debate was hijacked by fears that the law would create “death panels” and that it contained “Hitler-like” policies. The silly fear that the reform legislation posed the threat of creeping socialism was, by comparison, quaint.

During Trump's campaigns and his time in office, the misinformation became bigger, more all-encompassing. He could be seen as following Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels' theory of the "big lie": tell a lie big enough, often enough, and people will come to believe it as truth. Hence, we have Trump calling all truthful, legitimate news "fake" news, compared to his own false statements, which he presents as the truth. It started during the first campaign with his outrageous claims about the criminality of undocumented immigrants and has been an aspect of just about every topic he's addressed.

These claims are all incredulous positions that fly in the face of the facts. Why then do so many Americans, not just a small radical fringe, hold these beliefs so adamantly?

The answer is clear … they respect Trump or people such as Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, and so they have been fodder for the extreme demagoguery that Trump and others have used to create a rabid, angry, believing voter block. As for the Republican members of Congress, who have either repeated these charges or remained quiet, there's no way of knowing how much of their complicity is a product of their fear of Trump and how much is having come to believe his lies.

If actors on the political scene are so ready to pervert the truth, if they feel no ethical constraints, if they have no shame, we have reached a point where the American people need a Truth in Politics law to protect them.

To this suggestion, both liberals and conservatives will no doubt react with indignation and raise the flag of the Constitution’s 1st Amendment right of free speech. But the right of free speech is not absolute.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that there are limits to free speech. Perhaps the most relevant is the Truth in Advertising law that protects consumers from deceptive advertising. Specifically, under federal law, advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive; there must be evidence to back up any claims made; and it cannot be unfair. The law is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission.

Why is this exception made to the Constitution’s right of free speech? The reasoning behind this, and other consumer protection laws, is that the consumer is at a disadvantage vis a vis the businesses that cater to them … in this instance, because they don’t have the ability to reasonably determine for themselves the truthfulness of advertising claims and they therefore might make purchase decisions that either actually cause harm or are not in their best interest.

If consumers can be protected from false and deceptive advertising, surely the general public should be protected from false and deceptive claims in political statements and advertising that are likely to mislead and distort the voting process. Free speech advocates will say that citizens have the opportunity to learn the truth; that public debate exposes all falsehoods. That is the myth.

That was, at one time, true. But because of the advent of cable channels that cater to misinformation, the polarized nature of the populace, and the power of social media, not only do incendiary charges go viral within minutes, but people don't have the disposition to question what people they believe in say. Charges can be publicly refuted, but that has no impact.

The danger here is twofold: first, citizens will cast their vote or take other action in ways they wouldn’t if they knew the truth, acting contrary to their interests – such misinformation is thus another type of fraud used to alter election outcomes and policy decisions; second, these incendiary falsehoods have created an emotional, angry, polarized electorate making meaningful substantive debate on the issues impossible, thereby stifling the lifeblood of American democracy – the marketplace of ideas. Much of today’s debate appeals to the emotions; reasoned thought is a scarce commodity.

Much as it goes against my grain and the grain of most Americans, we have reached that point where to save our democracy, we must enact a Truth in Politics law. We can no longer depend on ethics or rational thought to save us from the demagogues.


Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com


Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less