What REALLY stops politicians from lying outright in attack ads?

Why don’t attack ads contain outright lies, as opposed to the usual lies by omission and lies by decontextualization they contain now? What is the attacked politican going to do?

He (probably) can’t stop the campaign to enter a legal battle, and if he doesn’t the lying party can use the delay to its own advantage in the court case: “If we were really lying and it really did matter, why wasn’t it addressed at the time? Why did he wait this long to bring suit?”

Plus, of course, suing to “shut up your opponents” and “waste the taxpayer dollar on frivolous, whiny lawsuits” doesn’t really make anyone look good. A courtroom is also a grand place to make bold speeches and get even more media attention, even if you do lose a few straw dogs.

Finally, the party could pick someone who is judgement proof (that is, too poor to be worth suing) to officially run the ad “on his own” and “without the knowledge or consent” of the slimeballs in charge.

First of all, how would someone too poor to sue be able to afford the TV ads? They’d have a hard time severing the trail of accountability, there.

Second, the court that matters isn’t the legal one, but the court of public opinion. If the other candidate can convince the electorate that his opponent is outright lying, that’s going to hurt the liar’s campaign.

Third, sometimes political ads do outright lie, when they think they can get away with it. Have we already forgotten about the Swift Boat Veterans Against Truth?

Why would “the taxpayer dollar” be involved here?

The lawsuit would be one political campaign against another. Even if one of them was a current elected official, they wouldn’t be able use funds from their office for this lawsuit, only their personal or campaign funds.
I suppose you could say the Judges’ salary and the various costs of the Court are a waste of taxpayer money, but no more so than any other lawsuit that is brought to court.

Usually, the TV stations and newspapers will refuse to run an ad that has outright lies. That’s one reason why there’s always a reference listed for each charge (even if they are lies by omission).

Also, the media will jump on any lie, so the ad can badly backfire.

“stops”?

Hey, they’ve already lied once in my hypothetical. They wouldn’t be averse to lying again about who is paying for the lawsuit.

The civil justice system isn’t free. The taxpayers have to pay the judge and jurors and law clerks and whatnot. Frivolous lawsuits cost us bucks every day.

… so their lie would be stating that the taxpayers are footing 100% of the bill for the lawsuit. Obviously. Not really relevant, however.