LockeColeMA wrote:
If they did lie, then so be it. I see no reason to not sue someone for slander (or libel, if it was written). Besides the massive avalanche of court cases, it would actually be kinda nice to hold people accountable for what they say during elections.
Edit: I couldn't quite get from this article if that's what he was suing for, though. Or what exactly the group lied about. It also had no references or backup, so a bit tough to find out more.
Barring them actually having said something substantially untrue about him directly, this case should not even have moved forward at all (you're correct that the article is unclear on specifics like what exactly they said and even what phase the trial is in). From what I can read (again assuming we're getting the gist of the whole issue), there's no grounds to sue at all. Even if his allegations are true, there's no slander in a group with a political agenda saying that some politician is someone they disagree with and asking people not to vote for that politician. That's called free speech and is presumably protected.
It can't be a "lie" because the group itself clearly has the right to decide if they believe that a politicians actions are in opposition to their own. A third party, much less the politician himself don't have any say in the matter. The voters get to decide if they agree with the organization's portrayal of him, and in this case it looks like they did. This should be thrown out on standing alone.
What's bothersome by this is that it does create a chilling effect on political speech. If some judge gets to decide whose opinion is "true" then that amounts to picking a side and using the judiciaries own biases to infringe political speech. That's a scary dangerous precedent to set.