Think a little bit beyond the scope of that commercial. Because OF COURSE the candidate approves their own ad. The point is to let people viewing know that this is an ad sponsored by the campaign itself rather than an outside organization or a wacko fringe group (both of whom also need to identify themselves in ads).
I think it’s a good rule. It prevents a candidate from running an ad and claiming it was a fringe group that slung the dirt. It forces candidates to take responsibility for the lies they say and the pledges they make.
Fine. Then I pit the audacity of the government that assumes we would honestly believe a politician’s claims that they didn’t approve the ad.
Stop poopin’ on my pittin’, y’all. It doesn’t have to make sense for me to be upset with it. Thank gawd it will be over with before we know it, and then we can have new pit threads on how horrible the new president is performing.
I’ll have to confess I have a problem with this law. I don’t have a problem with a requirement that an ad provide notice regarding who paid for it, but requiring that the candidate personally make the statement verbally smacks of the government putting words into the mouths of people participating in the political process. A tad scary.
It’s a lot better than when they didn’t require it. I believe that there was always a requirement that who paid for the ad be listed, but in the smear ads, it was always for about a quarter second in microscopic type.
It’s one thing to put out an ad that says that McBama is the lowest sort of worm who hangs out with jaywalkers and loiterers, but it’s another to say that when you have to put your smiling mug on the ad and explicity claim responsibility for what you’re saying with an “I’m O’Cain and I approved this message.”