Ohio agency the focus of Supreme Court case

Tom Jackson
May 5, 2014


Philip Richter used to run an obscure state agency. Richter is the executive director and staff attorney of the Ohio Elections Commission, which mostly fields complaints and makes rulings when a political candidate wants to complain that an opponent lied about him (or her).

He’s not famous. But his agency gained national publicity April 22 when a case, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. The underlying issue is whether Ohio law can prohibit false political speech. Readers who want to dig deep into the case should consult scotusblog.com .

Pundits have weighed in on the case, including well-known columnist George Will, who criticized Ohio’s “truth arbiter and speech regulator,” Richter’s agency, in a piece printed on the Register’s April 22 editorial page.

Richter said the controversy hasn’t affected his work. “We’re here. I’ve got a job to do. I honestly don’t think about a lot.” Richter said he traveled to Washington and watched the arguments before the High Court, although he didn’t get to weigh in. “Nobody was that interested in hearing from me,” he said.




Are there no comments here because of a system glitch?
Or because nobody's interested?
Please understand that I believe anything the US Supreme Court has to say should of interest to every citizen because the Supreme Court is the gateway.Perhaps individuals have decided not to comment because they don't want to spend the time to investigate and therefore refrained from commenting.


This case received a lot of publicity in other newspapers around the state at the time of oral arguments on April 22, 2014. Some of the Amicus Briefs are outstanding, especially one by the Cato Institute with comments by P.J. O'Rourke the satirist and commentator.

BTW, I met Richter and yes that quote is likely verbatim. This is the second case involving political speech and the Ohio Elections Commission that made it to SCOTUS. The agency actually does nothing of value for the people but is very effective at helping career politicians and thus the D's and R's maintain power by silencing and or punishing criticism of the system.


Of course the controversy hasn't affected Richter's "work" nor does SCOTUS or anybody else want to hear from this political hack because as he admits: "I honestly don't think a lot".


That's cute Babo. "I honestly don't think a lot".
Nice editing


Although to be honest if the full quote is verbatim it is less than inspiriting.

The Big Dog's back

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987, and in August 2011 the FCC formally removed the language that implemented the Doctrine


Thanks for the history recitation, but what are you trying to say?