About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Selling the Brooklyn Bridge
Author: BobR    Date: 09/29/2010 11:56:04

As we come down the final stretch of this campaign season, there's one thing we can always count on - political ads. You know the type - they start grainy and ominous, describing how a candidate is one of the devil's own, with unflattering black and white photos. Then - it suddenly becomes warm & fuzzy and full color, describing the virtues of the other candidate, with the de rigeur ending of "I'm ______ and I approve this message". There is a reason for that last bit - it's required by law. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 made it a requirement to minimize anonymous attack ads.

However, the law does not apply to on-line advertisements, and it does not apply to PACs. That last bit is important, especially after the recent Supreme Court ruling on corporate campaign donations. In a country where freedom of speech is codified and revered, money talks the loudest. Who has been speaking the loudest? It's been neither the Democrats nor the Republicans - it's been the PACs. Look at the chart at the link and page through previous weeks. You'll see "American Future Fund", "Americans for Job Security", "U.S. Chamber of Commerce", "Americans for Tax Reform", "Club for Growth". These ALL spend 100% on Republican candidates. Yes, there are some PACs that spend on Democrats too, mostly unions.

When you see an ad that doesn't have an "I approve this message" tacked onto the end, then it is likely coming from one of these PACs. If you watch closely, you'll usually see a "paid for by..." message that flashes quickly at the bottom of the screen. These organizations often have innocuous names (like above - "U.S. Chamber of Commerce"? Doesn't every small town have a Chamber of Commerce? Yes, but the country itself doesn't. It's a Republican PAC).

Living in DC, we see (and hear, on the radio) ads against energy taxes (paid for by a petroleum lobbyist), ads for certain military equipment (paid for by the military contractor itself - with funds ultimately derived via tax dollars), ads against regulations, etc. etc. etc... It has made us very tuned in to WHO is producing the ad. That is VERY important.

It's even more important this season with the growth of super PACs:
Three dozen of the new committees have been registered with the Federal Election Commission over the past two months, including such major players as the conservative Club for Growth, the Republican-allied American Crossroads and the liberal women's group Emily's List.

FEC records show that super PACs have spent more than $8 million on television advertising and other expenditures, almost all of it within the past month. Groups favoring GOP candidates have outspent Democratic supporters by more than 3 to 1, mirroring an overall surge in spending by the Republican Party and its allies in recent weeks, records show.

The super PACs have "opened the door to the clearest, easiest way to spend unlimited funds on an election," said Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman who served as general counsel to GOP presidential candidate John McCain in 2008. "This is pretty much the holy grail that people have been looking for."

It's five weeks until election day. We are going to be saturated with advertising. The ads from the campaigns themselves are bad enough. The ads from the PACs are more insidious. It's time to remain vigilant and be prepared to take the contents of the ads with a grain of salt until you can verify the veracity of the claims. People with a lot of money are hoping they can sell you a bill of goods - it's up to each one of us individually to counter the sales pitch with truth.

 

67 comments (Latest Comment: 10/01/2010 02:44:17 by Raine)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati