Why do politicians do this? As if they are putting their “stamp” on an independent voice that is putting out an ad on their behalf. But they are in the freakin’ ad!!
I just saw some Mitt Romney ad where he (Romney) was going through the reasons he is a “man of constancy” :rolleyes: or some similar bs (it was an obvious shot at Gingrich) and blah blah blah. At the end, you see Mitt, in all his gelled and frozen glory, standing there saying “I’m Mitt Romney and I approve this message.”
Well I fuckin’ hope so!?
There must be some stupid technicality that forces canditates to do this ridiculous step. Anyone enlighten me?
Obviously, this is more of a GQ thread but I didn’t think of that until after I had started it. I don’t know how (or even if I can) change a thread’s forum after I’ve first selected it but before the actual post
And none of that reasoning explains why it was deemed necessary when the candidate directly appears in the ad and speaks. (And, no, the idea that they may have had another clip taken out of context doesn’t work, since they could just as easily take the approval from another video as well.
All the law does is require candidates to stand by their ads. Previously, a candidate’s campaign could (and sometimes did) release vicious attack ads, and the candidate could then deny knowledge of the ads because, well, he didn’t know about them. By requiring the candidate him/herself to appear in the ad, and by requiring specific language, it’s now a lot harder for the candidate to disclaim knowledge; according to the Wikipedia link, the research indicates that the candidates whose ads contain the “I approve this message” tagline are viewed more positively than candidates whose ads don’t contain the message.
That being said, the Federal Election Commission and Federal Communications Commission have the power and the teeth to punish campaigns that don’t follow the law to the letter. Candidates face penalties from the FEC, and since political campaigns get the lowest advertising rates, if they don’t follow the law, they can lose that, which costs a ton of money. So there is a LOT of incentive not to cheat.
Probably in part because one can argue about how much of an appearance constitutes an appearance and how much speaking constitutes speaking. Requiring candidates to say a phrase makes the standard pretty unambiguous - either they say it or they don’t.
It seems to me it’s far more idiotic to go ballistic over a single line in a political ad, especially when there’s far more idiotic stuff going on in the rest of the ad.
Candidate: “I think all homosexuals should be killed and children be allowed to play with loaded guns after I lower the drinking age to 10. I’m Canidate and I approve this message.”
Ambivald: “Why the hell do they have to say they approve the message? That’s the idiotic part of the ad.”
Right now in Missouri, there’s some anti-spending interest group using actual quotes from a Senator (McCaskill) in a commercial which is pretty obviously anti-McCaskill.
So do you automatically assume that “when the candidate directly appears in the ad and speaks” in any random commercial that the commercially is automatically authorized by that candidate?
This is exhibit A. (It’s Rick Perry’s “Strong” ad. Not safe for anyone with cognitive ability higher than that of a retarded gnat.) The “I approve this message” at the end is the smartest thing Perry says in that commercial. In fact, given some of his recent gaffes, it’s probably the smartest thing he’s ever said in his entire life.
Essentially, the easiest way for a campaign to meet the FEC rules is to have their ad agency append the exact same end tag to EVERY spot, no matter what the content. It’s boilerplate, like “use only as directed”, “void where prohibited”, etc. that would normally seem obvious.
We have something kind of similar in Canada: all federal election ads (TV, print, whatever) need to say something to the effect of, “Paid and authorized by the registered agent for” (candidate or political party, whichever paid for the ad – not a trivial distinction as the Conservatives are in hot water for having local campaigns pay for national advertising, in a breach of strict spending limits).
So “paid and authorized by the registered agent for Canada’s NDP,” or “paid and authorized by the official agent for Ellen Candidate,” or “paid and authorized by Jean Martin, official agent for Joe Politician” or so forth.
As if they are putting their “stamp” on an independent voice that is putting out an ad on their behalf. But they are in the freakin’ ad!!