Could someone allege fraud on failed campaign promises?

MechaPilot said:

I think this is one area that isn't held to fraud laws because the promisee would be guilty of a crime as well. It is illegal, at least in the U.S. to buy/sell votes.

Click to expand...

Ah, but it is not illegal for people to contribute funds to an election. If the candidate gleans funds based on willful misrepresentation of the truth or intent, that might well be considered fraud.

ovinomancer said:

Nope, lying is protected speech as well.

Click to expand...

Well, clearly it is not protected in all cases, or we'd not have "fraud" in the first place.

You could do all kinds of other things, like vote them out or even recall or impeachment, but nothing legally about them lying.

Click to expand...

If there's nothing illegal about lying, you *can't* impeach them. Government officials are, for sake of convenience, often protected from direct legal actions against them. In order to accuse certain officials of legal wrongdoing, you have to go through the rest of the government first, and that process is impeachment.

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: really, no.

Janx said:

I think for it to be fraud, there would have to be a transaction/contract involved.

Since a vote isn't money/service/a good, it wouldn't qualify as a breach of that contract/exchange.

Click to expand...

Casting a vote, or refraining from voting, is a personal service that could be exchanged in a transaction. In the early days of U.S. politics, it very often was bought/sold, usually with copious quantities of beer (if my memory of history serves). That's why there's a law against it (at least in the U.S.).

However, the "politician promise" scenario is also contingency based: if you sold your vote for promise X, you won't get promise X if the politician loses. In that regard, the transaction would be seen more like gambling than a contract. And while there are plenty of contracts that have conditional provisions (if company X meets Y profit target under your management for three or more years, you get bonus Z), few if any of them require payment of the bonus before the condition is met, and with no obligation to repay if the condition is not met. The politician however, does get "paid" your vote before keeping the promise, and he literally cannot repay your vote if he cannot keep his promise.

Umbran said:

Ah, but it is not illegal for people to contribute funds to an election. If the candidate gleans funds based on willful misrepresentation of the truth or intent, that might well be considered fraud.



Well, clearly it is not protected in all cases, or we'd not have "fraud" in the first place.



If there's nothing illegal about lying, you *can't* impeach them. Government officials are, for sake of convenience, often protected from direct legal actions against them. In order to accuse certain officials of legal wrongdoing, you have to go through the rest of the government first, and that process is impeachment.

Click to expand...

Beach of contact is illegal, not the lying.

Plenty of good points made here about what this doesn't, and shouldn't, happen.

Thanks. Mayhaps it'll quiet my too-busy mind for a little while...

Cor Azer said:

4. a different legislator submitted the bill, and the politician in question voted against the bill

...

But assuming situation 4 could be grounds though, would it be enough to prove that you voted for him solely for that reason (of course, with most voting systems, this would be impossible beyond the court taking your word)? Would you have to show all/most people voted for him for the same reason?

Click to expand...

Even 4 would be neigh impossible to prove/win. No one runs a campaign on the full text of a bill they will propose if they get elected. In the US, rarely is a bill "clean" on an issue. There are times people vote against a bill that has something they want to pass because there is other stuff in the bill they disagree with more - a poison pill if you will (wild example, they may be for "healthcare for all" measures of the bill but against a provision that makes it legal to kick puppies). Even if it is relatively clean, they may vote against it for specific provisions or if it has some linkage to something else. The recent trade bill in the US is a good example - there was one clean bill about the trade agreement, but it was contingent on passing a worker protection bill - in the initial pass the Dems voted down the protections bill (normally they would vote yes) because of issues on the trade bill.

Sadly, unless they break the law somewhere, the accountability is usually limited to voting them out of office. There are recall options, but I suspect they have a low success rate.

Ovinomancer said:

Beach of contact is illegal, not the lying.

Click to expand...

False representation isn't a lie?