Skip to comments.
Candidates must take responsibility for ads
Daily Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 21
Charrlton Post and Courier ^
| 12/28/03
| SCHUYLER KROPF
Posted on 12/31/2003 6:19:25 AM PST by Valin
Candidates must take responsibility for ads
ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
BY SCHUYLER KROPF Of The Post and Courier Staff If the candidates' TV ads seem slightly different for the upcoming Feb. 3 Democratic primary, it's because federal law says they have to be.
As a result of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (otherwise known as McCain-Feingold), federal candidates are being made more accountable in their claims and charges.
In short, they have to add a disclaimer saying they approved everything that's said, be it a statement of fact or a charge volleyed at a rival.
According to the law, TV ads must show a full-screen, uncluttered view of the candidates giving their approval of what's been said.
They can read the statement in a background voiceover as long as it is accompanied by a clearly identifiable picture or image of themselves big enough to cover at least 80 percent of the TV screen's vertical height.
Reaction to the requirement has differed among political advertising experts. Some say it makes the candidates seem more trustworthy. Others say the few seconds it takes for a candidate to deliver the required ding eats into precious time that could be more advantageously used to deliver a message since most commercials are a brief 30 seconds.
Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards and Dick Gephardt have been the dominant advertisers in South Carolina. President Bush has been their target.
Similar requirements apply to their radio advertising.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cfr; cfrdailythread; firstamendment; freedomofspeech; mccainfeingold
1
posted on
12/31/2003 6:19:27 AM PST
by
Valin
To: Valin; RiflemanSharpe; Lazamataz; proud American in Canada; Congressman Billybob; backhoe; ...
2
posted on
12/31/2003 6:21:47 AM PST
by
Valin
(We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.)
To: Valin
Remember better to light a candle than curse the darkness.
Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
Special to FreeRepublic | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)
This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."
So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.
All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.
But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.
Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.
This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.
Fair enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts
3
posted on
12/31/2003 6:22:52 AM PST
by
Valin
(We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.)
To: Valin
This is bogus. The biggest complaint about this part of CFR is that it will take time away from the campaign trail to produce these ads. The candidate will have to spend, at most, an hour in the studio to record their affirmation of the ad's claims. After that, the same recording can be used for every ad. If the candidate is particularly inept, they may have to spend 2 hours in the studio recording their sentence.
Also, the concern over ensuring that the information is true is also bogus. Politicians engage in ambiguous terminology in their claims that can be supported positively or attacked negatively and either approach can be supported under the terms of CFR. Think Clinton and how much we had to parse his statements.
All this article shows is that the sole intent of CFR was to muzzle our right to free speech and erode the protections guaranteed under the Constitution (better, Eastbound? :-) ) If this is an example of John McCain's abilities at creating Bills in the Senate, he should be encouraged to stop. Passing one of his bills is a waste of Senator's time that could be better spent . . . ummmmm, reading the paper or going to the bathroom.
4
posted on
12/31/2003 9:31:03 AM PST
by
DustyMoment
(Repeal CFR NOW!!)
To: Valin; DustyMoment; sheltonmac; Jim Robinson
5
posted on
12/31/2003 1:28:52 PM PST
by
The_Eaglet
(Conservative chat on IRC: http://searchirc.com/search.php?F=exact&T=chan&N=33&I=conservative)
To: DustyMoment
I think the idea is that it will reduce candidate speech not by the time it takes them to record this phrase, but because it takes approximately 15% of a 30 second commercial to deliver the disclaimer line (whether measured in words or in seconds). Thus, the substantive messages of commercials will be even shorter than they already are, as candidates devote precious seconds to saying, "I'm Joe Blow, and I approve of this ad."
To: DustyMoment
I posted it as an example of the law of unintended consequences, more than anything else.
7
posted on
12/31/2003 5:05:08 PM PST
by
Valin
(We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.)
To: Valin
And, an excellent example it is.
Good heavens, what a totally crappy piece of legislation.
Happy New Year, Valin.
8
posted on
12/31/2003 5:13:19 PM PST
by
DustyMoment
(Repeal CFR NOW!!)
To: justshutupandtakeit
I don't have time to make a laundry list when it has been throughly discussed but suffice it to say that our free speech rights have NOT been ended, that incumbents are NOT removed from criticism and that government officials are NOT immune from criticism. All these pieces of nonsense have been loudly proclaimed as the result of this law by those who don't know what they are speaking of.
Pillars of BCRA
Among its myriad of components, there are two key pillars of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that have fundamentally transformed campaign finance law. First, the Act prohibits raising and spending "soft money" by federal officeholders and candidates and by the national parties, and severely restricts the use of soft money by state and local parties in relation to federal election activities. Second, the Act redefines what constitutes a campaign advertisement, subject to the disclosure requirements and contribution limits and contribution source restrictions of federal law.
http://www.citizen.org/congress/campaign/legislation/bcralaw/index.cfm Now I am not one of those who think that this is the end of the republic, but what it is, is one more step in "We the people" losing control of the government. Where these guys are headed is the complete federalition(if there is such a word) of ALL election. If these guys get their way there will be no private financing of any political campaign. They will all be funded by the federal government, with the bureaucracy deciding just who is and who is not a "real" candidate.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I have a tendancy to take the above seriously
9
posted on
12/31/2003 5:50:26 PM PST
by
Valin
(We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.)
To: DustyMoment
You to!
10
posted on
12/31/2003 5:50:58 PM PST
by
Valin
(We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.)
To: Valin
Outlawing soft money funded ads at a certain point in a campaign does not remove the control of the People over these elections, it likely increases it. Banning last minute ads in the electronic media does not prevent other ads funded with soft money by established and approved sources of funding from being used. It does prevent last minute sneak attacks from unaccountable sources so well used by the RAT party. Now there will be transparency in regard to funding and ad sources.
In like manner preventing state and local party funds from being used to fund federal candidates seems to be consistent with the understanding of federalism that I have.
It appears to me that the founders conceived of state-federal relations having a degree of autonomy which this seems to impose on the political parties. I see nothing inherently wrong in having national parties fund national election activity. Particularly when it is simple to combine candidates within an ad. An ad for a Senatorial candidate could include pictures, references to or words from the party's presidential candidate, could it not?
It also appears to me that the Founders would have agreed that controlling the influence of the money men and wealthy is important to the maintainence of a Republic. Most would
not disagree with the importance of regulating the degree of influence the wealthy have. Any examination of the period of the founding shows an almost hysterical reaction to "aristocratik" tendencies and "monarchical" tendencies particularly among the Jeffersonians. But there was no real desire on the part of his opponents, not even Hamilton, to have political life totally controlled by the wealthy.
11
posted on
01/01/2004 1:21:11 PM PST
by
justshutupandtakeit
(America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
To: justshutupandtakeit
Outlawing soft money funded ads at a certain point in a campaign does not remove the control of the People over these elections, it likely increases it.
Given that this law kicks in 30 days before a primary-60days before a general election, (just when most people are starting to pay attention to the election and desiding just who they're going to vote for) how does it give "the people" more control?
12
posted on
01/01/2004 2:03:26 PM PST
by
Valin
(We make a living by what we get, we make a life by what we give.)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson