November 12th / 14th
"Political Ads Should Meet a Higher Standard"
While the news media and political pundits are still reflecting back on
the outcomes of last week's elections, we might be better served to focus
instead on the flawed process under which those elections were run.
Clearly we are in need of serious campaign finance reform, because
McCain-Feingold was rendered essentially moot by this year's Supreme Court ruling.
Back in January, the Supremes said that corporations can use their profits
to advertise for political candidates, rather than funnel limited amounts
of money through PACs. Meanwhile, organizations like the US Chamber of
Commerce are free to solicit funds from undisclosed sources (including foreign
governments and companies) which they can use for political and advocacy
advertising.
But funding isn't the biggest problem. We need to stop campaign abuses by
reforming the political process at the back end, not at the source. In
other words, let candidates and parties raise all the money they want, but hit
them where it hurts every time that money is used to produce ads that
contain false or defamatory information.
Case in point, the GOP's attack ad against North Carolina House majority
leader Hugh Holliman. In an attempt to make Holliman look soft on crime, the
Republican party distributed a mailer that contained the following
language: "Thanks to Hugh Holliman, death row inmates could leave prison early and
move in next door (to you)". The ad had two major problems. First, it
wasn't true. Holliman is a proponent of the death penalty. And second, it was
extremely hurtful to Holliman whose 16 year old daughter was raped and
murdered back in 1985. The killer was caught, and Holliman witnessed the man's
execution.
After the media reported on the cruelty of the ad, State GOP chairman Tom
Fetzer formally apologized "if it caused him (Holliman) any personal
anguish or discomfort". Fetzer had no choice but to apologize, but it was a
hollow gesture because the Party has no intention of halting its use of negative
ads. And why should they? Research indicates that attack ads are effective
in swaying voters against a particular candidate or referendum. They
worked against Holliman, and they also worked against US Senate candidate Tom
Campbell. During the California GOP primary, Carly Fiorino ran a TV ad that
depicted Campbell as a red-eyed demon in sheep's clothing. Fiorino paid GOP
hit man Fred Davis to produce the ad at a price tag of $230,000. Davis knew
what he was doing was wrong, and so did the TV stations who accepted
Carly's money to run the ad.
And so, if we really want to stop the flow of denigrating political ads,
we must lobby for the FCC and the FEC to impose huge fines on everyone who
has anything to do with the design, placement, and distribution of those
ads. For starters, the State and Federal Election commissions should create
disclaimer forms which candidates and political organizations must complete
for each TV and radio spot, or print ad that they produce. On that form, the
candidate and campaign must swear that all of the information in the ad is
true. After that, anyone who has anything to do with that ad must be given
a copy of the signed form prior to production, distribution, or broadcast
of the material. If the ad is later determined to contain false and
defamatory information, the candidate would pay a fine of $100,000 for every time
the ad runs, and the campaign or offending organization would pay a fine of
$500,000 dollars per run. If the agency, consultant, video producer, or
broadcaster failed to ask for a signed form in advance, then each of those
entities would be fined $50,000 per run. Those fines might seem unfair, but
then, so are the ads they are designed to stop.
In the old days when I worked in local television, our sales departments
routinely rejected commercials that were in bad taste, even though that
meant losing revenue. We must demand a return to those more ethical times when
truth and dignity were more important than profits or votes.
|
