We do understand the point of view, which is that if you go into the ad already holding the opinion that Obama is anti-business you will see his comments in that light and the missing content is irrelevant.
That doesn’t make it correct.
Well, most laws get written one way and then get implemented differently than some people might anticipate. You see that with odd or unexpected interpretations of laws all the time.
Sure.
Situation:
A PAC is running an ad.
Then the candidate denounces the ad publicly and says he wants that ad to stop.
The PAC stops the ad.
That’s coordination, right? Using a common sense understanding of the term, not a legal one at least. Since it seems that this sort of thing has been allowed so far.
I personally think this whole system is dumb and you should just let the candidates direct the PACs directly and not make these silly restrictions. That would actually be better for accountability because you wouldn’t have to wonder exactly how much a candidate and their campaign support their own ads.
Campaign finance reform has clearly failed, and in any way that it actually accomplishes anything it’s usually in blatant violation of the first amendment. Just toss it and let the candidates raise money and spend it how they want.
No, common sense does not tell me that this is coordination. If Romney asked them to stop running an ad, and they did (after considering the political implicationsc), would that mean that they were “coordinating” with the Romney campaign as well?
Which isn’t to say that there isn’t secret coordination between any one candidate and their SuperPACS. It’s just that public disagreement over ad contents is almost the opposite of coordination.
I find it hard to believe you don’t see how the scenario I outlined above isn’t “coordination”.
The situation you describe would be the opposite of coordination, but it’s also the opposite of what I described.
Your situation:
A PAC is running an ad.
Then the candidate denounces the ad publicly and says he wants that ad to stop.
The PAC continues running the ad.
Yes, this would be the opposite of coordination. It’s also the opposite of what I said. Did you miss a word in my post or something?
No, that’s not my situation. My situation is:
A PAC is running an ad.
The opposite candidate denounces the ad publicly and says he wants that ad to stop.
The PAC stops running the ad.
Is the PAC coordinating with the candidate they oppose?
I ignored that hypothetical because I assumed it was a rhetorical question. Of course that’s not coordination.
I was referring to your statement of “public disagreement” being the opposite of coordination.
Let’s take it a logical step further. If a candidate asking his PAC to stop an ad isn’t coordination, couldn’t they effectively run the PAC by doing the following:
PAC creates rough draft scripts for dozens of ads. Releases them publicly.
Candidate supported by PAC publicly states which ones they don’t like.
PAC proceeds with development on the “green lighted” scripts and produces them into ads.
All of this is silly, as I said before. We should just let the candidates market themselves directly and avoid all this nonsense.
It’s a matter of degrees. At some point in time, it becomes coordination. If they only do it in one specific instance, you agreed that it is not coordination. I however would agree that it does send information to the SuperPAC, just not enough to cross the threshold into being coordination. Ideally, you would have information-theoretical “common knowledge” in order to be coordination, i.e. people on the phone or in a room together, but it doesn’t have to go that far. I’m not sure if your hypothetical situation would be coordination or not. It certainly would smack of it, and would raise the specter of having that strategy mapped out in advance, which would be coordination in my mind despite not being able to perfectly communicate during the advertisement campaign.
What’s the point of this exchange? In the history of the world, has a campaign ever asked another group to stop running an ad on its behalf??? 
Hmmm… I wonder how it would play out if the ad were re-shot from that angle and played to the accompanyment of Serious And Thoughtful People praising the President’s allies for taking the high road (and, oh by the way, pointing out that Romney’s own people clearly agree with the message, as indicated by the “she would have been OK if she’d lived in Massachusetts” response)…
I suppose the Republicans could accuse them of being “emotionally manipulative” or some such, but going right back to that well again would seem whiny and desperate.
The purpose is to attempt to make Obama look bad. Nothing else matters.
Never mind the fact that he legally can’t do anything other than verbally condemn it… but, honestly, what’s in it for him to do so? Romney outright lies in his official commercials, so republicans are just being whiny little hypocrites. That seems to be their strategy for this election- play the victim and whine your way to office.
I think the Romney campaign should run with the fact that his health care legislation in Massachusetts was apparently good for people, now that idea has been brought up by his own spokesperson. They should find ways to distinguish it from Obamacare and say, see, Romney knew what he was doing, here are all the things he did differently, can’t you see how the president’s bill is so bad and Romney’s was so successful? Especially in light of the fact that the ACA has been upheld and the sky hasn’t fallen. Not that I think the effects of it can be determined in only a matter of months, mind you.
So why is this ad by Obama getting its own thread and the ads put out by Romney himself that are outright lies and full of deceptive advertising not?
No need to answer, there would be too many threads if every deceptive Romney ad got its own thread.
Awwwww… the party of Atwater and Rove got its feelings hurt 
It must be because this MB is mostly pro-Republican and anti-Democrat.
:rolleyes:
Which he hasn’t done.
Decency?
…and the liberal whining about it on the SDMB and elsewhere is deafening.
Pot, Kettle.
True, but the FEC is toothless, and was designed to be.
I don’t think that’s close enough to call coordination.
I agree.
Candidate runs for office and says “vote for me!”
Super PAC runs ad and says “vote for him!”
Coordination?
Oh, there’s a rule that we’re not supposed to go into details and hypothetical scenarios when discussing legislation on the SDMB? Someone tell the mods to shut down 90% of the threads! 
It’s off topic, and the side exchange is already complete. But, it’s a mildly interesting topic. What exactly constitutes “coordination” as it’s currently verboten from the campaigns to their PACs?
I wish Colbert’s web site was letting me search because I’d love to post some clips of his spoofs of this concept. He got a lot of mileage out of this a few months back.
Ah, political discourse at its finest.
You DEMAND that Obama publicly condemn a political ad with which he had absolutely *zero *involvement, but you’re bothered that liberals are “whining” about Romney’s *deliberate * misquoting and misrepresentation in the ads that he, personally, endorses?
Congratulations. I think you’ve set an SDMB tu quoque record.
Oh, I can definitely see that happening.
I did a search and didn’t find any (I did find Clarence Thomas disavowing an ad during his confirmation process to the SCOTUS). I did find this hilarious case where a candidate tried to disavow his OWN ad though:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/gop-sen-heller-im-not-running-attack-ads
It’s not him running them, it’s his campaign, you see.