Did Campaign Advertisements Go Too Far?

Slander, when used with “actual malice” against public officials, is not protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Does that make President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris’ smear advertising campaigns illegal?

The Advertisements: One of Trump’s advertisements made misleading claims about “what Kamala Harris would do as president,” and referenced stances she no longer supports, such as banning fracking. One of Harris’ advertisements tells viewers that Trump plans on implementing The Heritage Foundation’s (Right bias) “Project 2025” proposal, saying, “Donald Trump may try to deny it, but those are his plans.” Trump has repeatedly distanced himself from Project 2025 and claimed he had “nothing to do with” those behind the proposal. 

For Context: Because slander and libel are considered torts, the target may take legal action on defamation grounds. A loophole is that grounds might not be upheld if some people don’t deem the slanderous accusations to be bad, and the accusations must be proven untrue. This, along with political speech policies, results in little protection for public officials against slander. Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is not required to pre-approve political advertisements or ensure their statements’ accuracy. 

How the Media Covered It: Outlets across the spectrum criticized the presidential campaigns’ combined $10.5 billion in advertising, and the widespread use of advertisements in swing states. Outlets also covered a Florida case in which pro-abortion advertisements were deemed “dangerous” by opponents, with more on the left highlighting supporters’ criticisms.