Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, stated on Wednesday that the emergence of fake political polling data from a company called Median Strategies presents an unresolved legal question. Turley noted on the social platform X that while the media widely reported the company's data, little is known about the individuals behind the firm. He further observed that under current Supreme Court precedent, even false statements may be protected by the First Amendment.
The company, Median Strategies, announced on Monday that it was ceasing operations and withdrawing all previously published data. The firm described its work as a "short-term social experiment" designed to test how unverified polling information spreads through the political information environment. Before its closure, the company released data concerning the Los Angeles mayoral race and the Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial primary that differed significantly from later election results.
One poll released by the firm showed Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) leading City Council member Nithya Raman by 12 percentage points. The data also claimed that 16 percent of respondents supported Spencer Pratt, a reality TV personality. In Wisconsin, the firm released a poll showing candidate Francesca Hong (D) with a 20-point lead; however, Hong lost the primary last week to David Crowley. Following these events, a spokesperson for Mayor Bass called for an investigation into "bad faith attempts to influence elections," while the Raman campaign stated the Bass campaign should have vetted the source before promoting the data.
For individual citizens, such fabrications could lead to a change in how they perceive the viability of candidates, potentially influencing their decision to donate or vote. If such "social experiments" continue without legal consequence, voters may notice an increase in conflicting or unverifiable data in their news feeds and political mailings. The incident sets a precedent for how campaigns and media outlets handle unverified digital sources, as seen when the Raman campaign publicly criticized the Bass campaign for failing to vet Median Strategies.
The legal knock-on effects center on the tension between election integrity and free speech. Turley pointed to United States v. Alvarez, where a 6-3 Supreme Court majority held that criminalizing lies—in that specific case regarding military honors—is unconstitutional. This suggests that unless specific fraud or harm is proven, creating fake data for a "social experiment" may remain legally permissible. No further dates for official investigations or court filings were reported, though the company has permanently halted its polling activities.