DISSIMILARITIES BETWEEN PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND LAWYERS

---

Members of Congress who oppose the comparison between the relationship of attorneys to the court and government officials to the public may argue based on the following distinctions:

• 1) Different Roles and Responsibilities
  • a) Argument: Lawyers operate within a defined, adversarial legal system overseen by a judge, with strict rules for truthfulness to ensure fairness in proceedings. In contrast, government officials act as policymakers and leaders, balancing advocacy, negotiation, and representation. Applying similar truthfulness standards could hinder these broader roles.
  • b) Response: The Act focuses solely on public communications, not private deliberations or strategic negotiations. It ensures the public’s right to informed governance without interfering with officials' ability to fulfill their broader responsibilities.
• 2) Ambiguity in Public Communications
  • a) Argument: Public communications frequently include opinions, predictions, or policy goals, which may not be easily classified as true or false. Critics may argue that equating such statements with courtroom testimony oversimplifies political discourse.
  • b) Response: The Act emphasizes accountability for verifiable statements of fact, including those that are unintentionally false but materially impactful. Opinions, rhetorical devices, and future projections remain outside the Act’s scope, preserving the complexity of political dialogue while safeguarding the integrity of factual claims.
• 3) Constitutional Concerns
  • a) Argument: In contrast to courtrooms, where professional conduct rules do not infringe on constitutional rights, regulating public officials’ statements might be perceived as a violation of their First Amendment rights.
  • b) Response: The Act respects constitutional protections by addressing factual misstatements without restricting broader political speech. It aims to uphold the public's right to truthful governance as a cornerstone of democracy, consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence.
• 4) Mechanisms of Accountability
  • a) Argument: Critics might contend that voters already serve as the "parent entity" for public officials, holding them accountable through elections. Additional oversight, such as the PIC, could be seen as redundant or unnecessary.
  • b) Response: The average citizen lacks the resources to fact-check every statement made by public officials. The PIC provides timely accountability for significant misstatements, especially those that influence public opinion or policy before elections.
• 5) Practical Challenges
  • a) Argument: Opponents may argue that applying rigorous truthfulness standards akin to those in courtrooms is impractical in the public sphere, given the volume and complexity of government communications. They may suggest that the PIC could face overwhelming workloads or disputes over its findings.
  • b) Response: See appendix “Workload Estimate and Implementation”. The workload of the ABA to regulate lawyers is likely as high as 800 times the workload to regulate statements by public officials. The ABA manages its workload, and so shall the PIC. 
• 6) Cultural Expectations
  • a) Argument: Some members may argue that political discourse traditionally includes exaggeration and rhetorical flourishes. Expecting complete truthfulness may be seen as ignoring the realities of governance and public communication.
  • b) Response: While rhetorical devices are permissible, factual misstatements—intentional or not—erode trust and harm democratic processes. The Act establishes a higher standard of truthfulness for verifiable claims without stifling rhetorical expression.