A stupid idea. In the end it would become your guy lied, mine didn't.
It's an extremely stupid idea that essentially taps the government as the "Ministry of Truth". Any law targeting "politicians who lie" would require someone to adjudicate:
- Whether a statement was a verifiable fact or an opinion/interpretation
- Whether the speaker knew it was false
- Whether it was material
- Whether it was "deceptive" versus spin, exaggeration, or a bad prediction
Those are not technical questions. They are political ones. The party that controls prosecutors and judges will apply the standard to its enemies and ignore it for its allies. Politicians would have to treat every sentence as potential evidence. Hyperbole, slogans, contested stats, and forecasts would all become legally risky.
Elections, political opponents, journalists, and fact-checkers exist to punish liars. They do it imperfectly (mores than ever before), but they do it without giving the state a veto over political argument. Criminal law already covers actual fraud, perjury, false statements to the government, and defamation. Expanding it to cover campaign rhetoric, policy claims, or whatever it is to be claimed a lie is not "accountability".....it is using the criminal process as a continuation of politics by other means. That path has a well-documented record of damaging democracies. The solution is not to let the people politicians already fight with decide, under threat of jail, which statements are allowed. That trades one form of untrustworthiness for a more dangerous one.
Absolutely stupid but not surprised people on here want to control speech in this way.