Could someone allege fraud on failed campaign promises?

[Cor Azer]

Here's a thought I've often wondered, and I hope can be discussed without bringing up actual political ideologies (well, unless someone has an actual link to such a thing happening).

A politician makes a promise during a campaign, and it's dear enough to you that you vote for said politician for that reason, despite other possible misgivings. Once elected, the politician fails to follow through on said promise through one of these situations:

1. the bureaucracy of the legislature prevented the politician from tabling a bill
2. the rest of the legislature voted down the bill
3. the politician never tried submitting a bill
4. a different legislator submitted the bill, and the politician in question voted against the bill

Do you have any grounds to allege fraud on the part of the politician, on the grounds he was unjustly rewarded (got elected for promises he had no intention of keeping)? I'm fairly sure he'd be in the clear in situations 1 and 2 - he tried, but was unsuccessful. Number 3 could be written off by priorities taking precedence, since there'd be no evidence he wasn't still intending to follow through.

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?

Or are campaign promises not held to a strict "verbal contract" standard?

 

[Morrus]

You can allege anything, of course. Generally speaking, a lot of political speech is protected and can't be sued for. I don't know if campaign promises fall into that category, but given the fact that every politician doesn't get a thousand frivolous law suits every day, it seems likely. You'd get 50% of the country automatically suing the winning politician in any election!

 

[Kramodlog]

The promise is not made to anyone in particular. Not sure anyone could sue.

On a side note, politicians do keep their promises. We just notice the few ones they do not keep. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...features/campaign_promises034471.php?page=all

 

[Umbran]

Or are campaign promises not held to a strict "verbal contract" standard?

I am pretty sure they aren't. The campaign is telling you what they want to do. Despite how they may word it, no reasonable person who knows anything about the process can say that a campaign promise could be considered legally binding.

Now, if you found documentation that shows the candidate outright lied about their intent - like someone takes a cell phone video of them discussing in the back room how all the voters are so gullible to believe what they said at the podium during a speech, *then* maybe you might have grounds for fraud.

 

[Cor Azer]

You can allege anything, of course. Generally speaking, a lot of political speech is protected and can't be sued for. I don't know if campaign promises fall into that category, but given the fact that every politician doesn't get a thousand frivolous law suits every day, it seems likely. You'd get 50% of the country automatically suing the winning politician in any election!

Ah yes... would have to screen out the frivolous stuff somehow...

On a side note, politicians do keep their promises. We just notice the few ones they do not keep. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ma...features/campaign_promises034471.php?page=all

I always assumed they did. I generally try to assume most people want to do their jobs properly until I'm presented evidence to the contrary.

I suggested this more as a thought experiment rather than any particular dissatisfaction.

I am pretty sure they aren't. The campaign is telling you what they want to do. Despite how they may word it, no reasonable person who knows anything about the process can say that a campaign promise could be considered legally binding.

Now, if you found documentation that shows the candidate outright lied about their intent - like someone takes a cell phone video of them discussing in the back room how all the voters are so gullible to believe what they said at the podium during a speech, *then* maybe you might have grounds for fraud.

So, "Reasonable Person"... we meet again...

 

[Kramodlog]

I always assumed they did. I generally try to assume most people want to do their jobs properly until I'm presented evidence to the contrary.

I suggested this more as a thought experiment rather than any particular dissatisfaction.

But it isn't what a lot of people think. There is resentment toward politicians for not keeping most of their promises.

So, "Reasonable Person"... we meet again...

Needs 100% more nerdrage.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am pretty sure they aren't. The campaign is telling you what they want to do. Despite how they may word it, no reasonable person who knows anything about the process can say that a campaign promise could be considered legally binding.

Yup, but it doesn't have anything to do with reasonable persons.

Now, if you found documentation that shows the candidate outright lied about their intent - like someone takes a cell phone video of them discussing in the back room how all the voters are so gullible to believe what they said at the podium during a speech, *then* maybe you might have grounds for fraud.

Nope, lying is protected speech as well. You could do all kinds of other things, like vote them out or even recall or impeachment, but nothing legally about them lying.

 

[MechaPilot]

Here's a thought I've often wondered, and I hope can be discussed without bringing up actual political ideologies (well, unless someone has an actual link to such a thing happening).

A politician makes a promise during a campaign, and it's dear enough to you that you vote for said politician for that reason, despite other possible misgivings. Once elected, the politician fails to follow through on said promise through one of these situations:

1. the bureaucracy of the legislature prevented the politician from tabling a bill
2. the rest of the legislature voted down the bill
3. the politician never tried submitting a bill
4. a different legislator submitted the bill, and the politician in question voted against the bill

Do you have any grounds to allege fraud on the part of the politician, on the grounds he was unjustly rewarded (got elected for promises he had no intention of keeping)? I'm fairly sure he'd be in the clear in situations 1 and 2 - he tried, but was unsuccessful. Number 3 could be written off by priorities taking precedence, since there'd be no evidence he wasn't still intending to follow through.

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?

Or are campaign promises not held to a strict "verbal contract" standard?

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. Title 18 of the united States Code, section 597 says you can face fines up to $10,000 and up to two years imprisonment for willfully violating that section, no more than one year in prison if the violation was accidental.

 

[Janx]

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.

thus, if you pay me $10 to kill the rat in your attic and I go up there and come back with a dead rat that I had in my pocket, that is fraud. You contracted me to perform a service, and it turns out I didn't do it.

Me promising to "XYZ the poor!" on the campaign stump, and you voting for me and I win and then while in office, I don't even touch the topic of "XYZing the poor" could be for a variety of reasons, but as you didn't actually pay me, I'm not actually defrauding you.

There may be a case for some kind of "failure to represent", meaning I said I'd vote one way, and keep voting the opposite. I'm not sure if there's laws on that. I imagine somebody might consider that a kind of fraud, but I think the historical bed of examples of this not being a legal issue likely makes it a moot argument.

 

[Umbran]

So, "Reasonable Person"... we meet again...

Yep. This person is littered through the law, here and there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

This is a good thing, because while law does not equate to justice, law is at least partially an attempt to reach justice, and justice is not programmatic - it cannot be reduced to only objective measures.