Vanasco v. Schwartz, 401 F. Supp. 87 (E.D.N.Y. 1975).
Schwartz v. Postel, 423 U.S. 1041 (1976).
参见Evan Richman, Deception in Political Advertising: The Clash Between the First Amendment and Defamation Law, 16 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 667 (1998).
参见Lionel Van Deerlin, Exposing the Fraud and Flimflam in Political Advertising, San Diego Union Trib., Aug. 7, 1996, at B5。值得注意的是，这种「移花接木」的手法构成了事实上的误导(misrepresentation)，因而可以也应该受到法律上的禁止。但是假如「移花接木」只是一种所谓的「恶搞」，例如将竞争对手和马克思或斯大林放在一起，那么由于一般公众显然知道照片的不真实性，因而不会产生事实上的误解。事实上，「恶搞」的目的幷非反映任何事实，而只是表达当事人的价值主张，因而不能为法律所禁止。参见下文的「竞选毁谤案」。
Gary Nordlinger & Curtis Gans, Negative Political Ads - Good or Bad?, Gannet News Serv., Sept. 18, 1990.
Peter M. Warren, Truth in Advertising a Loser in Dornan-Sanchez Mailers, L.A. Times, Nov. 2, 1996, at A1.
John Tierney, Why Negative Ads are Good for Democracy, N.Y. Times, Nov. 3, 1996, at 52; Brett Pulley, Zimmer Drops Ad Featuring Fake Newscast, N.Y. Times, Nov. 2, 1996, at 28.189－191.
Goldwater v. Ginzburg, 414 F.2d 324 (2d Cir. 1969).
Harte-Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989).
Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper, 568 S.E.2d 893 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002).
Id. at 901.
Antonovich v. Superior Court, 234 Cal. App. 3d 1041 (Cal. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 1991).
In re Clayton M. Reynolds III, FEC No. 90-69, Final Order 6 (on file with Fla. Elec. Commn); Division of Elections v. Fischer, FEC No. 94-122, Proposed Final Order 28 (on file with Fla. Elec. Commn).
Division of Elections v. Fischer, FEC No. 94-122, Proposed Final Order 28.
参见Thomas Kane, Malice, Lies, and Videotape: Revisiting New York Times v. Sullivan in the Modern Age of Political Campaigns, 30 Rutgers Law Journal 755 (1999).
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749 (1985), at767-769.
某些广告同时混合了政治和商业两种性质，而最高法院尚未确定究竟适用哪种审判标准。例如针对运动鞋工厂的生产条件不安全的指控，耐克公司发布了一则公关广告。原告认为这则广告构成错误和误导性陈述，违反了加州《不公平竞争法》对不公平和欺骗行为的禁止。加州最高法院决定了耐克广告究竟是属于加州商业言论法的规制范围，还是属于受
宪法保护的公共议题的政治言论范围，最后判决原告胜诉。参见Robert L. Kerr, From Sullivan to Nike: Will the Noble purpose of the Landmark Free Speech Case Be Subverted to Immunize False Advertising? 9 Communication Law and Policy 525 (2004). 被告并不能透过将商业广告和政治沾上边，就免于州法对商业言论的规制。但是加州最高法院并没有说明如何处理商业言论和政治言论混为一体的言论，而联邦最高法院拒绝接手审理该案。
Evan Richman, Deception in Political Advertising: The Clash Between the First Amendment and Defamation Law, 16 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 667 (1998), at 671－672.
Id., at n. 17.
某些学者认为选民的非理性是因为选举过程充斥过多的金钱和不相关信息，因而要求透过立法限制竞选过程中的捐款和信息，从而保证选举结果的理性。虽然某些法院表明愿意从选举理性的立场来做出判决，但是最高法院有关竞选资金的判例(如1974年的Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1)仍然是从传统的第一修正案立场出发，因而未能适当考虑言论自由和选举理性的平衡。参见James A. Gardner, Protecting The Rationality of Electoral Outcomes: A Challenge to First Amendment Doctrine, 51 University of Chicago Law Review 892 (1984).
