LIKELY OBJECTIONS

---

The proposed Truthfulness in Public Communication Act, which aims to impose a duty of truthfulness on government officials and establish the Public Integrity Commission (PIC), may encounter several likely objections and challenges if it were to be considered for passage into law. Here’s an overview of potential objections:

1) The Objection: "Who Decides What is True?" 

• A likely objection to the proposed Public Integrity Commission (PIC) and its mandate to ensure truthful communication by public officials is that it may position the Commission as the “arbiter of truth,” potentially leading to bias, overreach, or political influence. Skeptics may question the ability of any body to impartially judge what is true, arguing that truth can sometimes be subjective or politically charged, especially in matters of public discourse.
• Legal Basis for Objection
  • i) First Amendment Concerns:
    • (1) Critics may argue that any governmental body tasked with determining truth risks infringing on First Amendment protections, which guarantee freedom of speech, even if that speech is misleading or controversial. In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, ruling that even false statements are generally protected under the First Amendment unless they cause specific, tangible harm (e.g., fraud or defamation). This precedent could be cited to oppose the PIC’s authority, suggesting it may conflict with constitutional protections of speech.
  • ii) Vagueness and Overbreadth Doctrine:
    • (1) Legal challenges might claim that the PIC's mandate to ensure truthful communication is too vague or overly broad, making it difficult for public officials to predict which statements might be scrutinized or penalized. The vagueness and overbreadth doctrines have historically been used to strike down laws that chill protected speech by being overly ambiguous (Grayned v. City of Rockford, 1972).
  • iii) Risk of Political Weaponization:
    • (1) The potential for bias or misuse of the PIC by political opponents could undermine its legitimacy. The Lochner Era and cases like Shelby County v. Holder (2013) highlight concerns about government entities being perceived as overstepping their bounds or favoring one side of a political spectrum.

• The Response: "No One Decides What is True—The Truth is Discovered"

  • The PIC’s core mission is not to dictate or impose what is true. Rather, it aims to establish and promote an unbiased, rigorous, and methodical approach to determining factual accuracy in public statements made by government officials. This is achieved through several key mechanisms:
  • Unbiased, Methodical Investigation
The PIC relies on established investigative methodologies, such as evidence-gathering, corroborative research, expert consultation, and analysis. This process mirrors investigative principles in legal, journalistic, and scientific contexts where objective inquiry is paramount. It involves:
    • i) Gathering Evidence: Collecting available data, records, and verifiable information relevant to the statement in question.
    • ii) Consulting Experts: Engaging subject-matter experts to evaluate complex topics or contested facts in an unbiased manner.
    • iii) Contextual Analysis: Assessing public statements within their appropriate context to avoid misrepresentation, sensationalism, or selective interpretation.
  • Transparency in Process
To mitigate concerns of bias or overreach, the PIC’s processes and findings are publicly documented and available for scrutiny. This openness ensures accountability, builds public trust, and enables independent review or challenges by qualified parties, including subject-matter experts and independent ethics bodies.
  • Checks and Balances
Recognizing the potential for errors or overreach, the PIC itself is subject to oversight and review mechanisms. Any findings it issues can be contested or subject to appeal, providing an additional safeguard against potential misuse of its authority.
  • In summary, the PIC does not “decide” truth based on its own authority but rather seeks to uncover and validate truth using systematic, impartial, and verifiable methods. Its role is to provide clarity and accountability in public communication, ensuring that facts—not opinions or agendas—form the basis of public discourse and trust between officials and citizens.
  • Legal Basis for Support
    • i) Compelling Government Interest:
    • (1) Ensuring the accuracy of public statements by officials serves a compelling government interest: preserving public trust and democratic integrity. Courts have recognized that government has a legitimate interest in maintaining the integrity of its processes and institutions (Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 2009).
    • ii) Analogies to Professional Regulation:
    • (1) Similar to how lawyers are held accountable under ethical rules (e.g., Rule 3.3 of the ABA Model Rules) or how doctors are required to adhere to professional standards of care, public officials can be held to standards that do not infringe on their personal free speech rights but instead regulate their conduct in office. In Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006), the Court ruled that the First Amendment does not protect public employees’ speech made pursuant to their official duties, underscoring the distinction between personal and professional speech.
    • iii) Defamation and Fraud Precedents:
    • (1) The PIC’s mandate could be framed as analogous to existing laws against defamation and fraud, where false or misleading statements causing demonstrable harm are not protected. For instance, public figures must meet a higher standard of proof for defamation under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), but outright lies causing harm to public trust could reasonably meet this threshold.
    • iv) Transparency and Accountability:
    • (1) The PIC’s transparency mechanisms and independent review processes align with due process requirements, addressing concerns about overreach. In Mathews v. Eldridge (1976), the Court emphasized balancing government interest with procedural fairness, which the Act’s provisions for oversight and appeals aim to uphold.

2) The Objection: "Lies Told by Officials Are Sometimes for the Public's Own Good"
Critics may argue that, in rare instances, public officials need to distort or withhold the truth from the public to protect citizens, maintain stability, or achieve greater policy objectives. This argument hinges on the premise that the public may be unable to “handle” certain truths, and that, in such situations, deception or obfuscation can serve a greater good.

• a) Legal Basis for Support
  • i) National Security and Executive Privilege:
    • (1) Courts have recognized situations where withholding or distorting information may be justified for national security reasons. For example, in United States v. Nixon (1974), the Court acknowledged the legitimacy of executive privilege in matters of national security or foreign relations. While the case ultimately favored transparency, it highlighted scenarios where secrecy or distortion might be justified to protect sensitive interests.
  • ii) Compelling Government Interests:
    • (1) In limited cases, deception may align with a compelling government interest, such as preventing public panic or protecting lives. For example, during wartime, disinformation campaigns may be critical to protecting military operations and ensuring public safety. This concept aligns with doctrines such as "strict scrutiny," which allow government actions that would otherwise violate rights if they are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.
  • iii) Government Speech Doctrine:
    • (1) The government has broad discretion in determining its own speech, as established in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum(2009). While this doctrine primarily addresses government speech rather than individual public officials, it suggests that officials acting within their role may have latitude in controlling narratives for perceived public benefit.

• b)  The Response: “Lying to the Public Erodes Decision-Making and Trust"
  • Fundamental Flaw in the "For Their Own Good" Argument
    • i) Citizens as Decision-Makers: The essence of democracy is the belief that citizens are capable of making informed decisions about their lives, their communities, and their government. When public officials lie, they deprive citizens of the very information needed to make sound choices, which fundamentally contradicts the role of a democratic society.
    • ii) Undermining Trust: Lies inevitably undermine public trust in government institutions and officials. Trust is difficult to rebuild once broken, and the long-term damage caused by dishonesty far outweighs any perceived short-term gains. Without trust, society becomes more polarized, public engagement diminishes, and the effectiveness of governance declines.
• c) No Positive Outcome for Deception
  • i) Decision-Making Based on False Information: When citizens act on false information provided by government officials, their decisions and actions are inherently flawed. It is akin to building a house on a foundation of sand—the resulting structure is unstable and destined to collapse. For example, if citizens are misled about a public health crisis or economic policy, their individual and collective responses may lead to harm, greater confusion, and a loss of faith in government competence.
  • ii) The Public's Ability to Handle Truth: History shows that even when truths are difficult or painful, citizens are resilient and capable of understanding complex realities when given accurate, transparent information. Attempts to "protect" the public through deception undercut this resilience, suggesting an unwarranted paternalism that disrespects the maturity, intelligence, and capability of the citizenry. The duty of public officials is not to shield the public from reality but to equip them to respond effectively and make well-informed choices.
• d) Deception as a Formal Fallacy
  • i) Contradictory Logic: The argument that lies serve the public’s good while citizens simultaneously rely on truthful information for sound decision-making represents a formal fallacy. The premise and conclusion are logically incompatible: one cannot claim to act in the public's interest while knowingly undermining the public’s ability to exercise informed judgment.
  • ii) Perverse Incentives: Allowing room for “benevolent” lies creates a dangerous precedent where officials may justify dishonesty based on subjective or self-serving criteria. This opens the door to abuse, corruption, and manipulation, eroding the fundamental accountability that is crucial for a transparent and just government.
• e) Truth as the Cornerstone of Accountability
  • i) Responsibility of Public Officials: Officials are entrusted with power and resources to serve the public interest, and with that trust comes the obligation to communicate honestly. When errors are made, the expectation is to address and correct them transparently, not to cover them with lies. Accountability strengthens governance by exposing missteps to public scrutiny and enabling corrective measures. 
  • ii) Empowering Citizens: Providing truthful, accurate information empowers citizens to participate meaningfully in democracy, advocate for necessary reforms, and contribute to national resilience. Honesty from officials fosters a well-informed populace that is better prepared to collaborate, innovate, and face challenges as a collective.
• f) In conclusion, deception is not and cannot be a legitimate tool for governing. While truth may sometimes be uncomfortable or challenging, it is the only basis upon which trust, accountability, and sound public policy can be built. Public officials must hold themselves to a standard of transparency and integrity that respects the intelligence and autonomy of every citizen. Lies told "for the public's own good" ultimately serve no one but those who wield them, perpetuating harm, division, and mistrust within society.
• g) Legal Basis for Support
  • i) Public Trust Doctrine:
    • (1) The principle that government officials act as fiduciaries of the public trust can be derived from cases like Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois (1892), where the Court ruled that public resources must be managed for the public's benefit. By analogy, public communication is a resource, and deceptive practices undermine the trust necessary for officials to fulfill their fiduciary duties.
  • ii) Duty of Honesty in Professional Ethics:
    • (1) Public officials may be compared to other professions, such as lawyers or doctors, which are held to ethical standards to avoid harm to those they serve. In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.(2009), the Court emphasized the importance of integrity in judicial processes to maintain public confidence, an argument that can extend to the communication of public officials.
  • iii) First Amendment and "Marketplace of Ideas":
    • (1) While the First Amendment protects free speech, including potentially false speech, the Court in Abrams v. United States (1919) emphasized the role of the "marketplace of ideas" in discerning truth. This doctrine supports transparency and accuracy as essential to informed decision-making, particularly for citizens evaluating their government.
  • iv) Checks on Government Power:
    • (1) In New York Times Co. v. United States(1971) (Pentagon Papers case), the Court underscored the public's right to know about government actions, even when those actions involve sensitive topics. This case suggests that withholding truth undermines accountability, a key safeguard against abuse of power.
  • v) Legal Prohibitions Against Certain Lies:
    • (1) Existing laws, such as those against perjury or fraud, establish that some forms of falsehood are unacceptable in official conduct. For example, federal fraud statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 1001 criminalize knowingly false statements to federal agencies, underscoring that accuracy is often a legal obligation for public officials.

3) Constitutional Concerns

• a) Separation of Powers: Critics may argue that establishing an independent body with authority to scrutinize and potentially sanction public officials, including the President, members of Congress, and federal judges, could violate the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Government branches traditionally operate with mechanisms of self-regulation, and an external entity overseeing officials’ truthfulness may be seen as overstepping these boundaries.
  • i) Legal Context: Lawyers are subject to oversight by state bar associations and the judiciary, which are independent of the other branches of government. Courts have consistently upheld the role of state bars and the judiciary in regulating the legal profession without violating the separation of powers. Lawyers are held accountable for their conduct by these bodies because they owe a duty to the court, not just to their clients. This principle is built on the idea that all branches of government must operate with integrity, and this includes the role of the judiciary in regulating the conduct of those who practice law within its domain.
  • ii) Bill Context: The independent commission (PIC) proposed here would similarly be established to ensure truthfulness among government officials, operating independently of the executive and legislative branches. The judiciary’s oversight in the case of lawyers sets a useful precedent, showing that external oversight can be both necessary and constitutional when it serves the public interest and upholds integrity in government.
• b) First Amendment Issues: Opponents may raise concerns that mandating truthfulness could infringe on the First Amendment rights of government officials. They may claim that it could deter free speech or open dialogue, particularly if officials fear being punished for statements deemed inaccurate or misleading, even if such statements were made in good faith.
  • i) Legal Context: Lawyers, under Rule 3.3 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, have a duty of candor toward the tribunal, meaning they must not knowingly make false statements or allow false evidence to be presented in court. The duty of truthfulness here does not infringe on the First Amendment, as it is narrowly tailored to protect the integrity of the legal system and ensure that justice is served. Courts have consistently held that speech made in the context of a legal proceeding or within a regulatory framework (such as legal ethics) can be subject to restrictions that prevent deception or misrepresentation.
  • ii) Bill Context: Similar to how lawyers’ truthfulness is protected without violating their First Amendment rights, the PIC would ensure that public officials are truthful in a manner that serves the public interest. Any restrictions on speech would be narrowly focused on preventing harm to public trust, rather than stifling free expression. The bill’s safeguards would ensure that any enforcement is carefully limited to communication by a public official intended to reach or influence the public.
• c) Due Process: There could be concerns over whether the enforcement processes of the PIC would afford sufficient procedural protections to ensure fairness and impartiality in its proceedings, raising due process objections.
  • i) Legal Context: Lawyers facing disciplinary actions by state bar associations or other legal bodies are entitled to due process, including notice of the charges, the right to a hearing, and the opportunity to contest allegations. This ensures fairness and impartiality in the enforcement of legal ethics rules.
  • ii) Bill Context: Similarly, the PIC would be required to follow due process procedures in its investigations, ensuring fairness and impartiality. Any penalties or remedies would be subject to review, and public officials would have the right to challenge the PIC’s findings, ensuring that any actions taken are consistent with constitutional due process protections.

4) Potential for Political Weaponization

• a) Partisan Bias: Some may argue that despite efforts to ensure independence, the PIC could become politicized or susceptible to partisan manipulation. Opponents might fear that the commission could be used as a tool to target political adversaries or suppress political speech, thereby creating an atmosphere of "political prosecution."
  • i) Legal Context: In the legal profession, disciplinary bodies like bar associations strive to maintain impartiality and independence from political pressures. If partisanship or political bias were suspected in legal disciplinary proceedings, it could lead to challenges in court and undermining of the legal profession’s credibility.
  • ii) Bill Context: While the potential for partisan bias is a valid concern, the bill proposes multiple safeguards, including a diverse commission drawn from a variety of sources such as retired judges, established ethics bodies, and academic ethics boards. These mechanisms help ensure that the commission remains independent and impartial, and the use of supermajority votes for commissioner selection adds an additional layer of protection against political manipulation.

5) Resource and Feasibility Issues

• a) Cost and Administrative Burden: Establishing and operating the PIC may require significant resources, staffing, and ongoing oversight to ensure independence and effectiveness. Opponents may question whether such an initiative is feasible and worth the investment, considering existing ethical bodies and mechanisms.
  • i) Legal Context: Disciplinary bodies for lawyers are often funded by membership dues or government budgets, and although oversight of lawyers can be resource-intensive, it is considered necessary to maintain the integrity of the legal profession. The cost is viewed as an investment in the overall public trust in the justice system.
  • ii) Bill Context: Establishing and operating the PIC would similarly be an investment in maintaining public trust in government. While the commission would require resources, its role in ensuring truthfulness and accountability could help prevent much larger costs associated with misinformation or dishonesty from public officials, which can erode public trust and damage democratic institutions.
• b) Complexity of Investigations: The scientific, data-driven approach envisioned for PIC investigations may face logistical and technical challenges, potentially making investigations lengthy, resource-intensive, and prone to bureaucratic inefficiency.
  • i) Legal Context: Investigations into lawyers’ conduct can be complex, but bar associations have established procedures for handling these investigations, which include using expert witnesses, conducting hearings, and adhering to strict rules of evidence. This ensures that the investigative process remains fair and objective.
  • ii) Bill Context: The PIC would similarly adopt clear, methodical investigation procedures, ensuring that its work is both effective and efficient. The bill envisions an approach that is systematic, transparent, and based on clear evidence, similar to how legal ethics investigations are carried out.

6) Existing Mechanisms May Be Seen as Sufficient

• a) Redundancy with Current Systems: Some may argue that existing mechanisms, such as congressional ethics committees, Inspectors General, the Freedom of Information Act, and defamation laws, already hold public officials accountable and that a new layer of oversight is unnecessary.
  • i) Legal Context: While the legal profession is already subject to ethical rules enforced by bar associations and courts, additional checks (such as disciplinary panels) exist to ensure transparency and accountability. These mechanisms do not replace existing systems but supplement them to ensure integrity.
  • ii) Bill Context: Similarly, while existing mechanisms like congressional ethics committees and the FOIA serve important roles, the bill addresses an unmet need by establishing an independent body that focuses specifically on truthfulness in government communication. This body would complement existing systems and ensure a more comprehensive approach to government accountability.
• b) Reforming Existing Bodies: Opponents might suggest that efforts would be better directed toward strengthening existing bodies, enhancing transparency in current processes, or better enforcing existing laws, rather than creating a new body with broad investigatory powers.
  • i) Legal Context: Within the legal profession, various mechanisms already exist to regulate attorneys’ conduct, such as state bar associations, disciplinary boards, and judicial review. However, the legal profession has recognized that enhancing and streamlining these existing bodies is sometimes necessary to maintain or improve the public’s trust in the legal system. For example, the American Bar Association (ABA) and various state bars have periodically reformed their disciplinary procedures to increase transparency and ensure that they adequately address ethical violations.
  • ii) Bill Context: While existing bodies such as congressional ethics committees, the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), and Inspectors General do provide some oversight, they often lack the focused mandate on truthfulness in government communication. These bodies may also be constrained by political dynamics, limited scope, or insufficient investigative powers. The proposed bill creates a body specifically dedicated to enforcing truthfulness, transparency, and accountability, which is not redundant but complementary to existing systems. By filling a gap in the current framework, the bill provides a comprehensive approach to addressing the problem of dishonesty in government communication, while still respecting the existing oversight mechanisms. A new, independent commission with specific focus would ensure that truthfulness in government is treated as a priority.

7) Political Reality and Resistance from Public Officials

• a) Lack of Political Will: Many public officials who would fall under the new law's purview may resist or block its passage, perceiving it as a threat to their autonomy, political speech, or influence. Passing a law that directly subjects themselves to a new layer of oversight could be seen as politically risky and against their interests.
  • i) Legal Context: In the legal system, many reforms to improve ethics and accountability have faced initial resistance, especially from within the profession. For example, there have been instances where lawyers and legal organizations have resisted reforms that could impact their autonomy. However, the necessity for self-regulation in maintaining the integrity of the legal system has eventually led to acceptance of reforms, particularly when those reforms are seen as enhancing public trust in the legal profession. Courts and bar associations recognize the need for such reforms, even when they are initially unpopular, to uphold the ethical standards of the profession.
  • ii) Bill Context: Similarly, resistance from public officials is likely to be a challenge when introducing this bill. However, the goal is to increase public trust and ensure that public officials act in the best interests of the citizens they serve. Public officials may view increased oversight as an infringement on their autonomy or political speech, but the bill’s focus on transparency and truthfulness serves the public interest, which outweighs the potential concerns of individual officials. Just as lawyers accept oversight by bar associations as part of their professional duty, public officials must recognize that transparency and accountability are essential to a healthy democracy.
• b) Public Officials' Influence on Appointments:Given that government officials would be scrutinized by the PIC, there may be concerns about whether any appointment process—even a judicial or ethics-based one—would truly ensure independence.
  • i) Legal Context: In the legal field, concerns about the independence of disciplinary bodies have been addressed by establishing transparent and impartial processes for the selection of judges, bar association members, and disciplinary panels. This typically involves a combination of elected officials and independent boards, with checks and balances to ensure that no single entity can unduly influence the process.
  • ii) Bill Context: The bill’s provisions for appointing commissioners from diverse, independent sources—such as retired federal judges, established ethics bodies, and university ethics boards—are designed to mitigate concerns about political influence. The use of supermajority votes in the selection process adds another layer of protection, ensuring that the commission operates with consensus and is not subject to partisan manipulation. Furthermore, the bill specifies transparency in the process, so that the public is aware of how commissioners are chosen and can hold those involved in the selection accountable if necessary.

8) Chilling Effect on Public Discourse

• a) Deterrent Effect on Communication:Some critics might claim that imposing strict truthfulness requirements could deter public officials from communicating openly or engaging with the public for fear of reprisal. This could lead to a chilling effect, limiting the public’s access to timely information and official perspectives.
  • i) Legal Context: In the legal profession, strict ethical standards concerning truthfulness, such as those in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, have not been shown to deter open communication among lawyers. Instead, these standards ensure that the legal profession maintains its credibility and that lawyers act in the best interest of their clients and the legal system. Lawyers are still free to express their opinions and arguments within the bounds of truthfulness, but they are prohibited from making false statements or misleading the court. This balance allows for free communication while maintaining integrity.
  • ii) Bill Context: Similarly, the truthfulness requirements for public officials should not be seen as a deterrent to communication, but rather as an encouragement for more honest, open, and transparent dialogue. Public officials are still free to express their opinions and engage in debate, but they must do so with honesty and integrity. The goal is to prevent misinformation, which can hinder public understanding and decision-making, rather than curtail open communication. Much like the legal profession, this bill seeks to strike a balance between freedom of speech and the need for truthfulness in public discourse.