Just about every politician claims to dislike smear campaigns, and they promise not to muck up the other guy, but at some point in every election, one side shows an ad that the other considers dirty, and they take it as justification to retaliate in kind, and we voters are left in the dust, not knowing who threw the first punch.
I have a suggestion which might have half a chance of keeping campaigns clean: Both sides should agree to submit all advertisments to an independent watchdog group prior to publication. This group would check all ads for accuracy and other forms of fairness.
No ad could get published (or broadcast) without the group’s okay. If any ad does get published without the group’s okay, the group will publicize that fact. Representatives of the group will be assigned to work with the campaign staff of each party so that the approval process won’t slow down any ads that need to be rushed out. And, of course, there would be confidentiality agreements in place to prevent leaking of strategies and such.
The only problem I see would be finding an independent group who the candidates and public would consider impartial. Would the League of Women Voters suffice? Or maybe someone else.
I suspect that once the organization was found, public pressure would force the candidates to accept the idea. Especially if one candidate agreed, it would be suicide for the other candidate to object.
Interesting idea, Keeves, but IMO there’s no chance of finding a group that is A) truly independent and (more importantly) B) appears truly independent.
How difficult is it to put together an impartial jury in a well-publicized case? Now increase that by several orders of magnitude.
I once heard an idea I felt had some promise. It was that all campaign ads be limited to one format; the candidate had to appear on camera and read his own lines. It’s one thing when Candidate Jones’ “staff” puts out an attack ad saying that Candidate Smith’s voting record “proves” he favors molesting young children (an ad which Jones quickly denounces after its broadcast as the work of an anonymous overzealous junior staffer who has left the campaign); it would be another to hear Jones make the accusation himself and have to subsequently defend it.
The problem is that it would be too easy to get around this. Advocacy groups that favor one candidate would run ads that attack the other without being directly associated with the campaign. And naturally there would be no shortage of campaign people giving damaging information about their opponent to media people, who would then eagerly run it (after of course clearly stating that they are only reporting the rumors, not implying they’re true).
DSYoungEsq, the advantage of my idea is that it would be done voluntarily, because all candidates claim to be in favor of clean campaigning. Voters also claim to dislike mudslinging, so they would tend to support those candidates who volunteer for a procedure such a I suggested.
But I concede to Little Nemo. Too often the rules get circumvented by those who clearly support a specific candidate, yet couch their language as merely commenting on specific issues.
If only one group has control over what is seen, isn’t that akin to censorship?
Hey, if the Demos and Repubs candidates want to make asses out of themselves I am all for it.
Besides, be realistic, if one “group” of people are to have control over what is seen and not seen (censorship again) doesn’t that make it possible that those within the group could sway others into only letting out one political view?
I think it’s a good idea, Keeves, and one partial way around the problem of ads produced by the advocacy groups that Little Nemo mentions is to allow those groups to submit their ads to the same watchdog org., to get a kind of “Good Campaigning Seal of Approval”. They wouldn’t be required to, of course, but as you say, voters might give more consideration to those ads that were approved.
I think the problem is that a ‘negative’ ad may be appropriate in some cases. For example, some ads take the line of “Senator Bob proposed a bill that Communists be forced bused to your home to kill your puppies - do you really want 6 more years of Senator Bob?”. This is a matter of congressional record, if this statement was untrue, he could sue for libel - and if it is true, its something I want to know, so I can vote against Senator Bob, because I am not in favor of forced busing of communists to your home to kill your puppies.
I agree, and if I had to give an example of what would be objectionable or not, it might be: facts of public record regarding your opponents would be fine; conclusions about them would not. For example, you can say “Here is senator X’s voting record on tobacco industry issues” but not, “Senator X is nothing but a puppet of the evil tobacco lobby.” I think it’s statements like the latter that people are tired of.
Yeah, I guess it would not work. Try this example. Let’s say Senator Bob’s bill got voted down. Let’s also say that one of the little riders tucked away in that bill was for some genuinely good thing. Senator Bob can now truthfully say that he tried to do this good thing, but Senators Carol, Ted, and Alice voted him down.
“Before you vote for George Smith for President, take a look at his record. As a Congressman, he voted to restrict your right to free speech* and your right to own a firearm**. He supports increased taxes for the poorest Americans***. He voted against one bill that would allow 50,000 starving babies to eat#, and against another prohibiting the beating of puppies with baseball bats##. With that kind of record, can you trust George Smith in the White House?”
Supports campaign finance reform.
** Voted for a bill restricting private ownership of shoulder-mounted nuclear weapons.
*** Voted to put a 0.000001% tax on cigarettes to support lung cancer research.
He instead voted for the bill that allowed a million starving babies to eat.
This was a rider in a bill that dissolved the Union and declared Trent Lott “King and Supreme Badass”.
(My example is a liberal being misrepresented, but the Right certainly has no monopoly on this tactic.)
Oh good grief! (in memory of Charles Schultz)
‘Voluntary’ is stupid. It loses out to the first person who decides not to go along with the ‘voluntary’ decision. Then everyone else breaks down and does it.
Just like Bush and McCain voluntarily agreed not to campaign negatively - then Bush gets his butt whipped in New Hampshire and pulls out the bazooka. Now you can’t put it away.
After having a day to think about this, I realized my earlier thinking was incorrect. The “negative campaign watchdog organization” reminded me of the MPAA, which provides the familiar movie ratings. This is a voluntary system; filmmakers aren’t required to submit their films for review. Many theaters will only show films that have these ratings (maybe most, I don’t know), but of the thousands of theaters in this country, there are enough that will show unrated films, so these films find their audience. Now, political ads are pretty much limited to TV and newspapers. There are 200+ channels, of which maybe a couple dozen have a large number of viewers. With newspapers there are even fewer options. There may be thousands, but only a small number in each city. (Columbus, OH has only one major daily.) If most or all of the channels or newspapers decide that they will only allow ads that have the “seal of approval”, then candidates are forced to participate if they want to get their message out. This wouldn’t be a legal requirement to have your ads approved, but a de facto requirement, and thus a de facto limitation on free speech. So, bad idea. Sorry, Keeves.
