Why is it not possible to prosecute politicians for fraud or at least sue them in a court of law for making fraudulent claims, possibly via a class action suit? If an advertiser promised that their product does X when it obviously does not, then that is essentially fraud, and I have the right to sue on those grounds because I paid for their services with my money. In the case of politicians, I give them votes based on their promises. If they try to carry out those promises and fail in good faith that is one thing, but if I give them my vote based on their promises and they don't make a good-faith effort to carry out those promises then they basically committed fraud.
The narrow legal answer is: false advertising regulations generally only apply to commercial trade which doesn't include elections; wider fraud offences are (unlike false advertising) not strict liability so would require you to prove that they knew the representation was false at the time it was made (as opposed to just changing their mind later), which is difficult, and in any case it's unclear that a court would consider a vote to be a gain of money/property; there's no unilateral contract here as there's no objective intent to create binding legal relations with every voter in the country; and administrative law concepts of legitimate expectations don't apply to manifesto/pre-election political promises per R (Wheeler) v PM. (That's all for English law, but I imagine the concepts are similar in the US).
The wider answer is: laws are made by politicians. They're not going to pass laws that would make them liable for lying to win elections.
The way to get back at politicians for lying is to vote others in office. Unfortunately your average idiot is so bereft of political awareness that their voting decisions are based on those banging the most pots and pans and getting the most coverage on MSNBC...so nothing ever really changes. It's one shill against the other. Bipartisanship needs to be broken in this country. Both parties need to be dissolved immediately.
Being able to vote others into office hardly constitutes moral hazard.
Lying to the American people as a politician for the sake of gaining power presents a very real clear and present danger to the United States of America. If we can't rely on a politician to at least make a good faith effort to carry out their promises, then the entire basis of a representative government, a fundamental concept upon which our entire union is based, is essentially nullified. I know this sounds naïve, but this is a very real conversation we should be having because it is at the root of many of the problems with politics these days and many problems can just be solved by introducing moral hazard when votes are at state and holding the politician and anyone that follows him into office (as a cabinet member) accountable.
Lying is fine with me. Lying for the purposes of getting votes from citizens, should fall under the clear and present danger clause and should be prosecutable just like yelling fire in a crowded theatre. If a politician wants to lie while outside an election cycle, that's fine, but from the moment they begin making an intentional effort to be voted into office, until the time they are voted into office, they should not be allowed to lie in forums and messages targeted towards a voter they are trying to court. Doing so, should be prosecutable.
Sue them? Did they sign a legally binding contract with terms guaranteeing the closure of Gitmo and a moratorium on domestic spying? Did this contract provide for immediate impeachment on breach of terms?
Sorry pal, but "promises" are worth the paper they're written on. It's simply your fault for being credulous. This game's been going on for hundreds of years.
"If you vote for me, I will <political promise here>" sounds like an oral contract to me, since it involves consideration in the form of a vote.
Oral contracts when done before witnesses may be enforceable in some jurisdictions, except when the type of contract in question explicitly requires a written counterpart, such as in the conveyance of property.
I'm curious if this could be solved at the federal level via checks and balances provided at the state level. i.e. could a State legislate that it is illegal for candidate for US federal office to make false campaign claims when in that state. e.g. Any promises conveyed in speech made by a US presidential candidate when campaigning in that state, would constitute a legally binding contract between that candidate and any constituent of that state that votes for that candidate if that candidate is successfully elected into office.
> I'm curious if this could be solved at the federal level via checks and balances provided at the state level. i.e. could a State legislate that it is illegal for candidate for US federal office to make false campaign claims when in that state.
No, states can't enforce laws which would penalize federal officials for how they perform official duties. This is pretty well established Constitutional jurisprudence.
Plus, I wasn't suggesting that we create laws that penalize federal officials for how they perform official duties. I was suggesting that we penalize US citizens for things done prior to them becoming federal officials. I wasn't suggesting that we prosecute them for how they do their job but prosecute them for false claims made to help them achieve that job. How they did their job would merely be used as evidence to support any claims made against them when they were ordinary US citizens. Their actions in office would be evidence to a crime, not the crime itself.
> Plus, I wasn't suggesting that we create laws that penalize federal officials for how they perform official duties.
You specifically proposed making them liable for breach of contract under state law if their official acts while in office did not comport with statements made prior to their election. Which is, exactly, punishing them for how they perform official duties.
> I wasn't suggesting that we prosecute them for how they do their job but prosecute them for false claims made to help them achieve that job.
If you abandoned your suggested contract model and instead wanted to make false campaign claims themselves actionable (rather than punishing for future actions that don't comport with campaign claims under a contract theory), I'm pretty sure that the First Amendment would be the problem -- the Constitutional bar for punishing acts of speech, particularly political speech, is very high, and there's almost no way that something trying to regulate based statements of the speakers future political intentions is ever going to meet it.
> Their actions in office would be evidence to a crime, not the crime itself.
Oh, and you want this to be a crime, now, not a civil offense (like breach of contract would be)? That makes it even less likely to be viable.
Given your understanding of law, how would you make it for an individual to make false claims during an election campaign (either in speech or in writing) and hold them accountable for actually carrying out the promises and claims they made publicly.
