George Will ? who speaks Feb. 26 at the John Locke Foundation?s sold-out 21st anniversary dinner ? focuses his latest Newsweek column on the way in which the confusing federal health care reform law has muddled a legal battle over an Ohio law that forbids false statements during election campaigns about a candidate?s voting record.
Recently unseated Democratic Rep. Steve Driehaus is suing a pro-life group that contends his vote for ObamaCare amounts to support for taxpayer-funded abortions. Driehaus disputes this characterization, emphasizing his work to help guarantee the federal health care reform legislation would not lead to federal funding for abortions.
The arguments of the pro-life groups are convincing, but the law?s pertinent provisions are so complex that Driehaus?s good faith should not be questioned. The law was cobbled together in haste. Many provisions are unclear because they were written to mollify one faction without angering another. Opacity was indubitably necessary for the dubious project of producing a congressional majority for legislation opposed by a large majority of Americans.
And then there is Ohio?s misbegotten ?false statement? law, which is an invitation to mischief as a campaign tactic. Shortly before the election, when Driehaus learned that SBA List was planning to make its accusations against him on billboards, he got the law?s enforcement agency, the Ohio Elections Commission, to find probable cause for questioning SBA List?s assertion. The billboard company decided not to proceed when Driehaus threatened to sue it. Now Driehaus is suing SBA List for defamation.
This episode teaches two lessons. First, legislation that must be ambiguous and misleading, even to supporters, in order to be passed should not be passed. Second, no good can come of a law that makes government the arbiter of the truth of political speech.
