Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar » A new twist on an age-old campaign dilemma
SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax      Advertise Here      About     Exclusive Subscriber Content     Updated Posts    Contact Rich Miller
CapitolFax.com
To subscribe to Capitol Fax, click here.
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.

       

13 Comments
  1. - 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.


  2. - 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!


  3. - 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.


  4. - Fed up - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 11:40 am:

    Wow another example of politicians passing laws that benefit them.


  5. - 42nd Ward - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 11:59 am:

    Katy bar the door on false campaign advertising.


  6. - 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.


  7. - 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.


  8. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Jan 17, 12 @ 1:26 pm:

    Insane. Lying should not be protected speech, politically motivated or not.


  9. - 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.


  10. - 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.


  11. - 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.


  12. - 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.


  13. - 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.


Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.


* Reader comments closed for the weekend
* Isabel’s afternoon briefing
* Things that make you go 'Hmm'
* Did Dan Proft’s independent expenditure PAC illegally coordinate with Bailey's campaign? The case will go before the Illinois Elections Board next week
* PJM's massive fail
* $117.7B In Economic Activity: Illinois Hospitals Are Essential To Communities And Families
* It’s just a bill
* Showcasing The Retailers Who Make Illinois Work
* Open thread
* Isabel’s morning briefing
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today's edition
* SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today's edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
* Live coverage
* Pritzker calls some of Bears proposals 'probably non-starters,' refuses to divert state dollars intended for other purposes (Updated)
* Yesterday's stories

Support CapitolFax.com
Visit our advertisers...

...............

...............

...............

...............

...............


Loading


Main Menu
Home
Illinois
YouTube
Pundit rankings
Obama
Subscriber Content
Durbin
Burris
Blagojevich Trial
Advertising
Updated Posts
Polls

Archives
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004

Blog*Spot Archives
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

Syndication

RSS Feed 2.0
Comments RSS 2.0




Hosted by MCS SUBSCRIBE to Capitol Fax Advertise Here Mobile Version Contact Rich Miller