So, in the US, a few years ago it seemed there was a big switch, where politicians started “approving” their messages. Why?
Was there a rash of third-party organizations that were running adds pro/con some of the candidates without their knowledge or permission?
Tripler
I’m the OP, and I’m confused by some of the commercials.
The McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act of 2002 requires that a politician’s television campaign ads contain the politician making the statement, either on camera, or with a picture of the candidate and voiceover.
No, the idea was that if a candidate had to put their name on their ad, they’d be less likely to run a sleazy attack ad. It wasn’t third parties causing a problem; it was first-parties running stealth attack ads.
If I remember correctly there where some pretty sleazy ads being run and then when it was pointed out the politician would say something to the effect of ‘my staff did it without my knowledge’.
it sure hasn’t cut down on the sleazy attack ads by most of the candidates this election.
At least in Michigan, it seems as though there are a lot of ads do not mention both candidates, do not mention what the candidate that is mentioned is running for, and are not paid for by the opposing candidate themselves. While I am not certain of the law, it seems as though organizations not officially attached to a candidate are not allowed to fund ads that allows voters to identify what the mentioned candidate is running for. I’ve heard both positive and negative versions of such ads.
Any ad that does mention both candidates or the office they are running for seems to include the approval of message sound clip, which seems to be required for any ad that is funded by the official campaign of the candidate doing the approving.
This is all what it seems to be, having listened to the radio a decent amount lately, and I could be wrong, but it would seem very odd for various ads to mention exactly one candidate and not what they’re running for unless there were explicit regulations behind them.
Remember anyone can take out an ad if they have the money. If I had a million to throw-a-way and I didn’t like our governor, I could take out ad after ad against him.
In Illinois our political ads are running night and day, and I think the ones endorsed by the candidate are a LOT tamer than the third party ads.
Another thing to remember, political ads run by the candidates themselves MUST be given the “best available rate for the time slot”
The political ads run by third parties? Well the TV stations can charge any amount for those ads.
So the third party ads are gold mines for the TV stations because ad revenue is WAY down in this recession
Actually it has.
But it has not cut down the sleazy attack ads run by various other groups not affiliated with the candidate.
If you watch carefully, you can see at the end the “Prepared and paid for by …” that tells you who actually produced this ad. Most of the sleazy attack ads are NOT from the actual candidate.
True, but in many cases these third-party ad preparers are running these ads with the knowledge and support of the candidates, and are doing so at arms length precisely so that the candidate can both be distanced from the content of the ad while benefiting from its mudslinging effect on his or her opponent.
It’s plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose in world of political advertising.
California begs to differ
How can the “I approved this message” requirement be constitutional? Or is it just that no one has challenged it?
what would be potentially unconstitutional about it?
It is Congress “making a law” about the content of political speech.
Seems like, if the candidate him/herself is narrating the spot, the approval of the contents would be implied. But still they have to “approve” the message.
It is not making any law about the content of the ad – just that the responsible candidate has to be identified, in specific words.
We have had similar laws here in Minnesota for at least a decade or two before this national law, that required all political ads, literature, etc. to specifically state “Prepared & paid for by …, John Doe, Treasurer”. And that requirement has been upheld by the Courts, long ago, and as recently as this summer.
Requiring that political speech be identified, and not anonymous, is not limiting the content of the speech, in the opinion of courts.
Have any decisions actually considered the provision? It would seem that Citizens United makes it clear that the First Amendment’s strictures are on what types of laws Congress (or the Minnesota Legislature) can pass in the first place, not on whether they apply to certain types of speakers (corporations or natural persons). Particularly in the political arena, it’s pretty easy to see how a restriction on anonymity is not content-neutral in the same way as a classic time-manner-place restriction.
Speaking from a purely non-legal standpoint, i don’t see why not. The restriction in no way limits what the candidate can say; it simply requires that the candidate take responsibility for the advertising that appears in his or her name.
And, again from a purely principled (rather than legal) perspective, i don’t see a problem with this at all. There are compelling reasons for allowing—perhaps even encouraging—anonymity for certain types of speech. One example might be whistleblowing. And, as a general principle, i wouldn’t support placing restrictions on anonymous political speech (or other types of speech, for that matter) when carried out by regular citizens.
But i also believe that, implicit in the principle of free speech, is the idea that you should be willing to stand behind what you say, and accept the fact that other people might not like it. We protect freedom of speech precisely in order to encourage a diversity of viewpoints, and unless you have a compelling reason for anonymity, i think you should be willing to attach you name to the arguments that you make in the political arena.
And this goes even more for people who are actively seeking public office, and who are asking the public to evaluate them based on their ideas and their beliefs and their principles and their policies. If slagging off your opponent is part of your political strategy, you have a responsibility to stand behind that as a seeker of public office, in my opinion. Sheltering behind anonymity in such cases not only fails to serve the public interest, it actively works against the public interest.
Yes.
The latest was in US District Court for Minnesota 40 days ago, when the federal judge refused to strike down a Minnesota campaign finance law requiring a corporation to disclose when it spends money to support or defeat a candidate. He ruled that they were “unlikely to prove that the law hampers their right to free speech.”
The plaintiffs went to an appeals court and asked for a rush injunction to prevent the required reports; as of today (2 days before the election) the Appeals Court has also not issued any such injunction.
And the issue at trial was strictly limited to required disclosure of spending on political campaigns, nothing to do with the the content of the campaigning.
Newspaper report on the decision [here](unlikely to prove that the law hampers their right to free speech.).
There’s a confusion of a couple of different things here.
First off, there’s an old broadcasting regulation that all commercials must clearly identify the sponsor.
Then, there’s the requirement that for a political candidate’s ad to qualify for the “lowest unit rate” the ad must be bought and paid for by the candidate own organization, and it must be identified as such.
On top of that there’s the difference between the old-style non-profit organizations, which are allowed to advertise for issues, but not for specific candidates, and the new-style organizations, which are allowed to be partisan.
Then there was the backlash to the “swiftboat” ads which were run against John Kerry back in the 2004 election, which were routinely thought to be the work of the Bush campaign, although, strictly speaking, they were from an independent group.
The easiest way to conform with all these problems is for the candidates to personally put a stamp of approval on their own ads. “I authorize/approve this message” is just a nice shorthand for saying it.