It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lets all sue our elected officials.

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
For what you may ask? How about false advertising laws?


False Advertising "Any advertising or promotion that misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities or geographic origin of goods, services or commercial activities" (Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)).


so here is my thought: Can we sue our elected officials based on false advertising.

The proof requirement for False advertising claims are as follows.


Proof Requirement To establish that an advertisement is false, a plaintiff must prove five things: (1) a false statement of fact has been made about the advertiser's own or another person's goods, services, or commercial activity; (2) the statement either deceives or has the potential to deceive a substantial portion of its targeted audience; (3) the deception is also likely to affect the purchasing decisions of its audience; (4) the advertising involves goods or services in interstate commerce; and (5) the deception has either resulted in or is likely to result in injury to the plaintiff. The most heavily weighed factor is the advertisement's potential to injure a customer. The injury is usually attributed to money the consumer lost through a purchase that would not have been made had the advertisement not been misleading. False statements can be defined in two ways: those that are false on their face and those that are implicitly false.


NOW here is where my idea comes into play.


Commercial activity. A "commercial activity" means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose



So if running for office requires a commercial activity, so wouldn't than by definition it fall under the false advertisement laws?

When an elected official runs for office they purchase commercial air time these ads are used for fund raising purposes, using verifiable claims. They make promises like any product would, the only difference here is when the products lie we can sue for false advertising.

So can we sue an elected official for false advertising?

all definitions taken from legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Sorry but according to federal law, federal employees are EXEMPT from lawsuits unless it is outside of their work. It would be nice if you could. Police are exempt too. Political candidates who are already in government would be covered I think. Not sure about those who are not currently working for the govt.
Maybe there are some experts out here who can help.
I DO like the idea tho!



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by kissitgoodbye
 


Yes but these are crimes committed before they hold office, at least with some, and then the crimes are in relation to an office they do not currently hold. IE Senator to President.


ALSO lets not forget many of these ads are not paid for by the actual official they are done by various groups or pacs that fund these people.

So if the official himself cant be sued cant these political activism groups be sued? like the GOP?
edit on 18-6-2011 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Wow you make a good point.
You don't need to cut the head off the beast to kill it, start at the legs and work your way up.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
politicians are not a fixed item like a loaf of bread. A loaf of bread has things in it that will not change so if it advertises one thing but has another in it that would be false.

Politicians work in a ever changing environment where often times they need to adapt or change their views based on changing situations. What they say one day may not be relevant the next. Of course they lie but as far as any lawsuit goes this would be their reasoning and a fully defendable postition for them to take.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Good idea; I can see the justice system standing up for the everyday people instead of the corrupt officials who appoint them to their positions.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


True, but wouldn't one extremely large class action suit against one of these advertising campaigns (they are making promises for others) That defense may not hold.

Plus just having something like this out there and in the news might make them more cautious with the lies they tell.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
To sue someone...dont you need lawyers and judges? Both of which, serve the royal crown...who controls politicians, lawyers, and judges. So, how the heck you gonna "sue" them? Figure that out, and you may be onto something!



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
u r wasting ur time and money.
the judge will just kick it out of court
as a trivial lawsuit like they did with
the birth certificate.

they will stall and stall and stall
running you out of funds for lawyers
and court costs before you
even get there.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join