We rely on a simple premise when we vote. We assume that while politicians spin the truth, there is a boundary they won't cross. That boundary is gone. Today, weaponized falsehoods form the bedrock of entire political campaigns.
Andrew Weissmann thinks we need to stop treating these lies as protected speech.
The veteran federal prosecutor and former FBI general counsel has spent decades chasing down high-profile targets, from Wall Street fraudsters to Mob bosses like Vincent "the Chin" Gigante. He also served as a lead investigator in Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian election interference. He knows how bad actors exploit systems. In his book, Liar's Kingdom: How to Stop Trump's Deceit and Save America, Weissmann argues that the United States cannot survive its current political climate without a radical legislative overhaul. We can no longer rely on old norms. They failed.
It's time to legislate honesty in our elections.
The Audacious Proposal for a Truth in Elections Act
The core of the argument centers on a piece of proposed legislation called the Truth in Elections Act. The goal sounds straightforward but is legally complex. We must penalize political figures who intentionally disseminate lies that undermine democratic processes.
Many legal purists immediately recoil at this idea. They argue that the First Amendment guards almost all speech, even the deceptive kind. But Weissmann points out that American law already places clear boundaries on deception. Think about perjury, fraud, or defamation. If you lie on a financial disclosure, you face prison time. If you lie about a competitor's product to destroy their business, you get sued into oblivion.
So why do we allow politicians to lie to voters about the structural integrity of our Republic?
The proposed framework looks at the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 for inspiration. That law made it a federal crime to lie about receiving military honors with the intent to gain a tangible benefit. When challenged, the US Supreme Court upheld the principle that targeted, damaging lies are not automatically protected by the Constitution. Applying this logic to voting, a Truth in Elections Act would target deliberate falsehoods about election dates, polling locations, voter registration requirements, and tabulated results.
Why the Marketplace of Ideas is Broken
The standard counterargument to policing speech is famously attributed to Justice Louis Brandeis. He believed the remedy for false speech is more speech, not enforced silence. That theory works in a town square where everyone hears the same discussion. It fails completely in a fractured digital ecosystem.
Modern political operations use micro-targeted campaigns to isolate voters inside echo chambers. When an official claims an election was stolen, repeating the truth louder doesn't fix the problem. The correction never reaches the people who believed the lie in the first place.
Our current hands-off approach actually chills truthful speech. Look at the modern corporate environment. Media networks utilize internal standards departments to vet statements because they fear costly defamation lawsuits. That isn't seen as a violation of free speech; it's seen as responsible practice. Yet, in the political arena, we expect the public to filter out massive disinformation campaigns with zero institutional support.
The Power of the Courtroom
If we implement a law against election deception, who decides what constitutes a lie? Leaving that power to a partisan executive branch would be disastrous. It would instantly be weaponized against political rivals.
The solution lies in the federal judiciary.
[Federal District Courts]
│
├─► Due Process Guardrails (Evidence-based discovery)
├─► Cross-Examination (Exposing fabrications under oath)
└─► Civilian Jury System (Ordinary citizens assessing facts)
District courts remain remarkably effective at cutting through political theater. They require actual evidence. They operate under strict rules of discovery and cross-examination. We saw this play out clearly after the 2020 presidential election. Dozens of legal challenges alleging widespread fraud were brought before judges, many of whom were appointed by conservatives. Virtually every single case was thrown out. Why? Because while a politician can say anything to a crowd or a television camera, lying to a judge carries immediate, severe professional and criminal consequences.
The courtroom forces accountability. It strips away the rhetoric and demands receipts.
Confronting the Reality of Targeted Retaliation
Pushing for these reforms is a dangerous game. Weissmann knows this firsthand. Donald Trump publicly labeled him "scum" and a "bad guy" during his presidency, attempting to undermine his credibility and derail his career. In a second administration where institutional loyalty is prioritized far above objective expertise, the risk of speaking out scales dramatically.
When independent legal professionals, academic institutions, and corporate firms see critics landing on executive enemies lists, a dangerous chill sets in. People choose silence over conflict. This quiet compliance mirrors the McCarthy era of the 1950s. If the legal community stays quiet to protect itself, the guardrails of democracy disintegrate entirely.
Actionable Steps to Combat Electoral Deception
Waiting for a gridlocked Congress to pass sweeping federal reform isn't a viable short-term strategy. Protecting the integrity of the vote requires immediate, localized action.
- Expand State-Level Election Laws: State legislatures don't have to wait for Washington. They can pass localized versions of the Truth in Elections Act, specifically criminalizing the intentional distribution of false logistical information regarding voting procedures.
- Utilize Civil Litigation: Voting rights organizations must continue using defamation and civil tort laws to sue individuals and media outlets that knowingly spread damaging electoral falsehoods. Financial penalties remain a powerful deterrent.
- Strengthen Local Election Boards: Local election offices need increased funding to establish rapid-response communication channels. When a malicious rumor surfaces about a polling site closing early, the correct information must be blasted out instantly across every available platform.
We must stop treating political lies as an unalterable fact of life. Lying can be held to account, but only if we possess the courage to build the legal tools necessary to do it.
