McKimm v. Ohio Elections Commission
89 Ohio St. 3d 139, 729 NE 2d 364 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A political communication, including a cartoon, that implies to a reasonable reader that a public official committed a specific illegal act constitutes a false statement of fact, which is not protected by the First Amendment if published with actual malice, meaning with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.
Facts:
- Randy Gonzalez, a township trustee, voted to award a $51,000 architectural contract without soliciting competitive bids, which was contrary to township policy but not illegal.
- Dan McKimm, a candidate for public office, ran against Gonzalez.
- McKimm created and distributed a campaign brochure designed as a 'quiz' for voters.
- One question in the brochure highlighted Gonzalez's vote on the un-bid contract.
- Adjacent to this text, the brochure featured a cartoon illustration depicting a hand passing cash under a table.
- McKimm later admitted that he had no evidence or factual basis to believe that Gonzalez had accepted a bribe or engaged in any illegal activity related to the vote.
Procedural Posture:
- The Ohio Elections Commission investigated an allegation against Dan McKimm regarding his campaign brochure.
- After a hearing, the commission found that McKimm had violated state election law and issued a reprimand.
- McKimm appealed the commission's decision to the common pleas court (a trial-level court).
- The common pleas court affirmed the decision of the Ohio Elections Commission.
- McKimm, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Ohio Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the commission's order violated the First Amendment.
- The Ohio Elections Commission, as appellant, then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a campaign brochure containing a cartoon that implies a political opponent accepted a bribe violate a state election law prohibiting the dissemination of false statements with actual malice, when the publisher had no factual basis for the implied accusation?
Opinions:
Majority - Cook, J.
Yes, a campaign brochure containing such a cartoon violates the state election law. The court held that the meaning of a communication is determined by the 'reasonable reader' standard, not the author's subjective intent. Under this objective standard, the cartoon depicting money passing under a table, when placed next to text about an un-bid government contract, unambiguously asserts the fact that Gonzalez accepted a bribe. Since McKimm admitted he had no basis for this accusation, he published it with reckless disregard for the truth, satisfying the 'actual malice' standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan. Therefore, the false factual assertion was not protected political speech.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that pictorial representations like political cartoons are not automatically shielded as opinion or rhetorical hyperbole under the First Amendment. When a cartoon conveys a specific, verifiable, and false factual assertion—such as the commission of a crime—it can be subject to defamation or false statement laws. The case reinforces the objective 'reasonable reader' standard for interpreting such communications and demonstrates that actual malice can be inferred from a publisher's complete lack of a factual basis for a serious accusation, even without a direct admission of intent to lie.
