Lying about the 2024 election will be harder

The mounting consequences for election-lie peddlers heading into November

Since 2020 saw a concerted effort to overturn the results of a presidential election, using lies to subvert elections has become part of the DNA of a political movement hoping to regain the executive office. And that movement is currently fabricating more lies — for example, falsely claiming that noncitizens are voting — sowing the seeds to argue again, in 2024, that the election results are wrong or invalid.

But there’s hope. 

Since 2021, defamation lawsuits — like those we’ve filed as part of our Law for Truth project — have been racking up victories against spreaders of false claims about the 2020 election. Those wins are sending a clear message: those who deliberately spread lies in an attempt to undermine U.S. elections will be held accountable.

How do we know? Well, it seems that media organizations with savvy business and legal teams are taking note and incorporating the risk of defamation litigation into their decision making. For example, Dinesh D'Souza, a prolific purveyor of election fraud conspiracies, can no longer get airtime on Fox News (he also had his film “2,000 Mules” dropped by Salem Media Group, his co-producer). Likewise, Rudy Giuliani, who spread numerous election lies including defamatory lies about Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, had his radio show canceled by WABC. 

The liars are still out there — but their lawyers, if they’ve been paying attention, know they need to tread more carefully this time. If they do moderate their spread of disinformation, it could lead to more facts, and fewer lies, getting oxygen during the upcoming election cycle. But why is this apparent shift in risk calculus happening? 

The media, and, importantly, their insurers, have probably noticed that defendants’ attempts to get these cases tossed out of court have consistently failed. Courts have sided with the targets of election lies on motions to dismiss, anti-SLAPP filings, and when defendants have attempted to side-step discovery. Courts have also rejected arguments that the First Amendment protects these defendants, correctly noting that where plaintiffs can prove defendants intentionally or recklessly published false statements, the First Amendment is satisfied. 

Kari Lake, the failed Arizona gubernatorial candidate, intentionally defaulted in the case brought against her by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer — meaning that Lake is not contesting that she defamed Richer when she falsely accused him of intentionally sabotaging the election. Her concession was an unusual legal move that suggested she was not eager to defend her statements or litigate the merits of the case. The Gateway Pundit, a far-right blog that we have alleged spread falsehoods about the 2020 election, declared bankruptcy just weeks before its owner was set to face a deposition. 

These maneuvers further suggest defendants know their cases are weak on the merits and fear the repercussions of evidence coming to light. Because it’s become increasingly clear that proceeding with litigation — in addition to great financial cost — will also lead to accountability for their false and defamatory statements. 

Lying about our democracy can cost you hundreds of millions of dollars

Plaintiffs have scored resounding victories. A jury awarded Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss $148 million from Rudy Giuliani. Fox News settled with Dominion for $787 million after facing the prospect of a lengthy and damaging trial. Media organizations like OANN and Project Veritas and Salem Media have issued retractions and apologies for their false election claims.

And while bankruptcy may in some cases protect defendants from the true costs of their lies, it’s not foolproof. It doesn't offer blanket protection and it’s a risky strategy even for reckless defendants. 

Take Alex Jones: the judgment against him for his slanderous behavior related to the Sandy Hook shooting was found to be nondischargeable in bankruptcy, meaning that, no matter what, he will always owe that money. 

Or consider Giuliani. His debt to Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss is likely to also be held nondischargeable. And while he initially continued to spread his lies about Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss after declaring bankruptcy, he backed down and consented to a permanent injunction after Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss initiated new litigation to put a stop to his lies once and for all.

Tipping the scale back towards truth

In this information — and disinformation — age, it’s clear that knowing and reckless lies, particularly those that undermine our democracy, have costs. Before these lawsuits, those costs were borne almost exclusively by the victims of the lies (which includes both the individuals and companies targeted, as well as our democratic institutions). That’s part of what made election disinformation so dangerous, and so appealing for its perpetrators. They could lie easily, instinctively, and without much thought or consideration. 

But through this series of cases, longstanding law has started to correct that imbalance. 

We don’t know exactly how this rebalancing towards truth will impact the 2024 election. But last time around, many of the disinformation purveyors seemed to have no regard for potential consequences in a frenzy of conspiracy theories. 

This year, those same actors — many of whom have personally faced consequences for lying — are certain to pause before doing so again. Or at the very least, their lawyers, insurers, and investors will force them to.