Negative Ads Inform Voters

Last week the New York Times roiled the upcoming U.S. Senate election in New Jersey by reporting that Repubican Thomas Kean Jr. planned to produce a film claiming that his opponent, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), was implicated in a corruption investigation twenty years ago.

Critics sometimes deplore such “negative advertising” and call for restrictions on such speech or the money that funds it. Under such a scenario, the government would gain the power to approve the content and tone of electoral advertising.

The Supreme Court, however, has never recognized “improving speech” as a legitimate reason for regulating money in politics. That’s a good thing.

The Kean film, if produced, will give New Jersey voters important information. If Kean’s claims about Menendez’s past are true, surely voters would want to know that. On the other hand, if Kean is making wild charges, the voters could also draw their own conclusions about his fitness for office.

The best solution to abuses of free speech is more speech, not government control over politics.