Some civil rights advocates have long claimed that political free speech is at the center of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. As such, they say that political free speech deserves to be protected and that candidates do not give up their free speech rights when they decide to run for public office. It has been said political campaigns--even nasty ones--are the price of a free society. It has also been said that the Constitution even gives political candidates the right to lie and make inaccurate statements during their campaigns.

Political advertising is a form of free speech

The freedom of speech is one of the fundamental freedoms or "civil rights" guaranteed to citizens by the Constitution. It is one of the freedoms of expression. Other privileges granted by the Constitution are the freedom of religion and the freedom of the press, as well as the right to vote and the right to equality in public places or accommodations.

In 1976, the United States Supreme Court ruled that spending money on political advertising was a constitutionally protected form of free speech.

In 2001, a federal court decided that a city could not ban political candidates from mentioning their opponents in a city voter pamphlet. The city's prohibition was labeled as censorship of a candidate's political statements. In overturning the ban, the court stated that freedom of speech is "essential to our democratic ideals." A civil liberties organization pointed out that disagreement with the beliefs or actions of an incumbent or another political candidate is one reason why people become candidates.

Can a state restrict judicial candidates' political speech?

The judicial canons or rules of conduct in some states prohibit judges from speaking out on issues. Such canons often prevent judges from taking political positions. In October 2004, a federal court ruled that Ohio state court rules limiting judicial candidates' campaign speech violated the United States Constitution. The court ruled that in protecting the free speech rights of voters, the First Amendment permitted candidates--even ones for judicial offices--to speak out on their party membership or affiliation, as well as on their views on political issues.

Several other courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have removed restrictions placed on speech or partisan activities by judicial candidates.

Free speech at the mall

In 2004, a state appellate court ruled that a shopping mall could not ban a political candidate from soliciting petition signatures on mall property. The court held that such actions violated the candidate's free speech rights because the state Constitution prohibited a private owner of a "quasi-public" place from using state trespass laws to exclude peaceful political activity.

Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.