A new twist on an age-old campaign dilemma
Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 - Posted by Rich Miller
* John Garrido lost a Chicago aldermanic race by a tiny handful of votes. But he felt he’d been libeled during the campaign and he sued. His opponent, John Arena, was backed by several labor unions, and SEIU ran an ad blasting Garrido for taking cash “from a corporation making millions from the parking meter deal.”
In reality, Garrido received a contribution from a security firm that works with the parking meter company. So, Garrido sued. But his lawsuit was dismissed because of Illinois’ Citizen Participation Act. From the 2007 law’s preamble…
There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation” in government or “SLAPPs” as they are popularly called.
The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations for involving themselves in public affairs.
What the law covers…
Acts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except when not genuinely aimed at procuring favorable government action, result, or outcome.
* WBEZ fills us in on what happened next…
“The defendant doesn’t have to go to the effort of trying to prove, for instance, that their statements were true, or that for whatever other reason it wasn’t defamation. All the defendant has to do is show that the Citizen Participation Act applies,” [attorney Shari Albrecht] said.
And then the lawsuit is dismissed. Plus, the plaintiff - the person claiming to be defamed - has to pay a chunk of the other side’s legal bills.
And that’s what John Garrido is looking at, according to court documents: $13,164 for lawyers hired by the Chicago Federation of Labor, $34,149 for SEIU Illinois, $34,222 for UNITE HERE Local 1, $62,407 for Comcast and $17,097 for John Arena. All told, those defendants say Garrido owes them roughly $161,000.
In his order last week re-affirming his dismissal of the case, Cook County Judge Michael Panter wrote that courts shouldn’t “police the veracity of our political candidates’ campaign allegations.”
* Garrido plans to appeal. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled on one case involving Illinois’ anti SLAPP law a little over a year ago…
In a clash of an individual’s free speech rights versus the right of companies to bring grievances to court, the Illinois Supreme Court sided with the little guy.
John Walsh spoke out about problems with the developers of his Edgewater condo building at a public meeting in his Chicago alderman’s office in 2007. After the meeting, a reporter talked to Walsh, who is president of the building’s condo association, and quoted him in a story about condo horror stories. The developers later sued the 58-year-old accountant for defamation.
The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that Walsh’s speech was shielded from liability under 2007 legislation that protects a citizen’s constitutional rights to participate in government.
It’s a significant ruling because the court broadly interpreted what actions fall within the scope of immunity, said lawyers involved in the case. It’s the first time the court has analyzed immunity granted in the Illinois Citizen Participation Act.
Discuss.
- Hacks - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 10:52 am:
It seems nearly impossible to sue for libel. Is this correct? So, the court didn’t even look at the merit of Garrido’s claim, merely that because Arena was running for public office, he was covered from libel from SLAPP? This doesn’t sound fair.
- Because I say so... - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 11:03 am:
A close friend ran for county wide office in Cook a couple years ago. Just because the campaign challenged the petitions of another candidate, who had previously been knocked off the ballot for bad signatures, got sued for defamation of character. The case was eventually dismissed but not until after it cost about 5K in attorney fees. Crazy!
- mark walker - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 11:29 am:
So, we can have a standard of truth, in public speech about individuals, supported by libel and slander laws — but there can be no standard of truth in political campaign speech. Because we expect, and in many cases incent politicians to lie to win?
All the more reason for a free, truth-seeking, and challenging press.
- Fed up - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 11:40 am:
Wow another example of politicians passing laws that benefit them.
- 42nd Ward - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 11:59 am:
Katy bar the door on false campaign advertising.
- anon sequitor - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 12:21 pm:
I’m all for freedom of speech, but many political attacks are intentionally vague (and occasionally deliberately misleading) yet clearly intended to intentionally convey the worst possible negative (and usually false) impression. There has to be some counter to this false advertising. I hate to give the Board of Elections more work, but perhaps we open up another avenue for campaign complaints with the power to assess fines. It probably won’t work, but at least there could be a hearing where the attacker has to back up their claims.
- wordslinger - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 12:31 pm:
I think the law and the Supremes interpretation are sound. The big guys have the means to counter any argument in the court of public opinion. They shouldn’t be allowed to break you with lawyers fees.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 1:26 pm:
Insane. Lying should not be protected speech, politically motivated or not.
- reformer - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 2:01 pm:
Wordslinger: What if the target of fabrications isn’t some rich corporation, but some mope who decides to run for local office?
Why should liars be legally protected? While the victim of lies who goes to court has to pay exorbitant legal fees of the perpetrators. How is that justice? This will encourage attacks that have little resemblence to the truth, and the target has no legal recourse.
- Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 4:15 pm:
Rich et al:
The lower court is misreading the original law.
It does not apply to campaigns, only those seeking government action.
Example:
I file a complaint accusing the developer down the street of illegal dumping.
I issue a press release noting that a complaint has been filed and the grounds.
The Tribune runs a story about the accusations.
Said developer files a lawsuit against me.
SLAPP lawsuit dismissed.
Prediction: Supreme Court remands the case back to the trial court.
- Anon III - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 5:01 pm:
I agree with Yellow Dog.
Nowhere in this Act to the words: candidate, campaign, election, or office, appear. This act is not in the Election Code, or in the Campaign Disclosure act; it is part of the Civil Practice Act. There is no inclusion of jurisdiction of the Illinois State Board of elections which has jurisdiction to administer elections.
I think it is pretty clear that this act is not intended to immunize defamations in the context of elections.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 5:30 pm:
=== think it is pretty clear that this act is not intended to immunize defamations in the context of elections.===
You could very well be right, and you laid it out pretty well.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 6:03 pm:
Actually the statute includes communicating with the electorate in the very broad definition of petitioning the government:
735 ILCS 110/10)
Sec. 10. Definitions. In this Act:
“Government” includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, official, employee, agent, or other person acting under color of law of the United States, a state, a subdivision of a state, or another public authority including the electorate.