I had a thought the other night and would like to see what you guys think of it.
Nearly all the real partisan division seems to be campaign and media driven. When you actually start comparing platforms you find differences, but often they aren’t as vast as ads, speeches, and other pol talk makes it out to be. What would be the reasonable effect of this sort of campaign reform?
Proposition: Given the Political Candidates are public figures being elected to positions of great responsibility; and that as such their speech must be subject to a higher standard of accuracy than a private citizen:
Candidates for office may spread their platforms and political beliefs in the following manner:
Candidates must maintain a website that has their platform available and easily found. They may post whatever they wish to this private site providing it does not violate current libel/ slander laws.
Candidates may utilize social media pages as per above re: pol speech .
Candidates may utilize formal media outlets but must restrict their speech to matters which can be factually proven, or referred to accurately in regards to political speech. So for example, If you were talking about your opponent’s plan on a television interview, you could not make leading and wild claims about your opponent’s platform if they are not part of what is available to anyone to read on the opponent’s site/ registered platform, whatever. They must be reasonably accurate and precise when referring to opponent’s speech. No more cherry picking or weasel words.
There will be no more “attack ads” of any sort. Television, radio, and print media advertising will be restricted to speech about your own message, not that of an opponent. There will be no more “approving of messages” ads either. Third party ads, (such as The Imaginary Council for the advancement of Goblins), not actual political parties running a candidate, will have to run a proper disclaimer stating that they are not affiliated with the candidate and that their speech has NOT been verified for factual reality or accuracy.
First impressions are it wouldn’t really work because no-one would have the discipline to stick with it. Unfortunately, attack ads and misinformation really, really work and politicians will keep using them until that changes. Even if your suggestions became law, I don’t think it would make much difference. For one thing, the definition of an “attack ad” is potentially enormously subjective. Attacks are so easily implied in even the most superficially innocuous speeches that one needn’t even mention an opponent by name in order to drag him down. If your policies were implemented, I predict that attacks would simply become slyer and harder to nail, which in a way makes them even more dangerous.
Secondly, people of both parties would continue to make wild claims about their opponents plans safe in the knowledge that tens of millions of partisans will take their side. Just look at how many people stood up for Sarah Palin in the wake of the death panels fiasco.
I kind of think that criticism of politicians and would-be politicians is a good thing, and that outlawing much of it would be beneficial chiefly to the most corrupt and dishonest ones.
Who get’s to decide what’s factually proven and what isn’t?
Really? I had no Idea! :rolleyes: I think I mentioned right there in the OP that as public figures of responsibility they ought to be held to a higher standard of accuracy in their speech. Of course, the law is concrete, all encompassing and never subject to revision, change or interpretation when it becomes outdated, oppressive, or overly broad in its application. Oh yeah, that’s why we have lawmakers.
That’s a good point, but don’t you think that criticism should be limited to what can be shown to be accurate? Wild assertions are fun and grab attention and votes, but are markedly irresponsible.
I dunno, maybe the people who make records, do tests, and keep data? You know, the usual people. For example, if candidate A shouts: " Candidate B wants to raise your taxes!" He should have to be able to back that up from something in candidate B’s platform.
The problem is that changing it is not as simple as passing a new law. A huge bulk of caselaw is based on the First Amendment, and changing this aspect without disturbing other areas, like, say, flag burning, is well-nigh impossible.
So I am, in a sense, addressing the merits of the idea when I say that what you want to change is too inextricably tied to what you probably don’t want to change. The tumor is benign, for the most part, but even if you think it isn’t, it’s inoperable.
Are you under the impression that political candidates do not already do this?
It seems you are holding politicians to a higher standard that journalists. That doesn’t seem to make sense to me.
Journalists are able to express opinions about any candidate’s platform, so long as there is not the willful intention to libel or slander that person. I’m not quite sure why a politician should get into trouble if he said in a debate, “My opponent has voted against the minimum wage 12 times!” if in reality the opponent only voted against the minimum wage 10 times.
Why on earth shouldn’t the candidate above be able to run an advertisement saying that his opponent voted against the minimum wage 10 times?
To digress a moment, when I lived in China, there was a terrible English-language newspaper called the China Daily. Every issue was chock-full of news like, “Wheat harvest up 7%!” or “Worker’s lives bettered!” or “120 tons of coal exported in one day!” or “Chinese delegation makes important speech at UN!”
It was all this feel-good crap about good news stories. The problem is that unless there is also reporting to put things in context, then simply issuing rah-rah statements about current events does not actually inform anyone of anything actually going on.
So, political candidates issuing rah-rah statements tells very little of the story. Negative campaigning is GOOD because it draws out the differences between candidates. One politician could say, “I support life!” and people would be left relatively uninformed of what that means – it takes his opponent to explain that “life” in the eyes of this politician means no abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. That’s an extreme position masked by BS election language, but under your system, that marketplace of ideas would be severely curtailed.
I fear this would just encourage politicians to peddle more BS about themselves than they already do, rather than clarify anything.
I would love to see a cessation of attack ads. I’ve got a general rule- “always vote against the politician who runs attack ads”. Unfortunately, that seems to be all we get here in Maryland- I don’t know who to vote against because it seems *everyone *is running negative ads.
No, I’m aware of it. I’m suggesting that these are the only two mediums which should be completely no rules zones. Since they are directly linked, and recorded digital media, there is an accurate record and it is not being disseminated by a third party network. In other words, They are 100% responsible for what they they post, and it is the proper place for them to employ their right to free speech.
To be frank, journalists should be held to it as well. In your example for instance, the candidate is either mistaken or a liar and fibbing on purpose to unfairly smear their opponent. I don’t see any value to that speech at all. They should check their facts and make their arguments based on reality; not make things up to instill them in the public conciousness. That is dishonest.
Why on earth shouldn’t the candidate above be able to run an advertisement saying that his opponent voted against the minimum wage 10 times?
[/QUOTE]
Nothing really, if that’s all they say. The problem is that is NEVER all they say, it’s more like : " My opponent voted against the minimum wage 10 times, he hates America!"
I’m not suggesting at all that the speech must be positive, rather that it be limited to proposing their solutions on the issues.
It seems you have a pretty serious reaction to someone who would say during an unscripted debate that his opponent voted a certain way 12 times, if in fact it was only 10 times. If so, I think you are holding politicians to a standard that any human would fail to meet.
We here on this message board have the luxury of time to compose our messages thoughtfully and accurately, and I know for a fact that I sometimes misstate things, despite my best intentions. Do you not sometimes do the same? If so, what do you think the effect would be on politicians if they would be sanctioned for a small slip of the tongue, confusing a 12 for a 10? My guess is that they would stop using facts entirely.
Although I can think of a handful of notorious attack ads, such as Willie Horton (which never aired, except on news programs covering the ad), the ad comparing former Senator Cleland to Osama bin Laden, and a few others. While I know you’re being dramatic in this comment, my view is that attack ads run by politicians are not nearly how you’re describing them here.
I don’t have a problem with someone running an ad saying, “Jack McCoy voted against the minimum wage 10 times! He just doesn’t understand the needs of working families.” That’s a negative ad and there’s nothing wrong at all with saying that. Even if the law were changed to your proposal, could you comment on whether this script would be prohibited?
“Adam Schiff thinks working families need a break: he supports raising the minimum wage by $1.50. But in the last three years, Jack McCoy has voted against raising the minimum wage ten times. Ten times! This November 2nd, working families should support Adam Schiff for Congress. I’m Adam Schiff and I approve this message.” (That’s just about as much text as you can read in a 30 second ad.)
Ravenman If I had to make a ruling, I would say that the content is fine but would have to be qualified; for example: “Jack McCoy voted against the minimum wage 10 times! He says that he will continue to oppose raising the minimum wage if elected. He just doesn’t understand the needs of working families.”
This would be fine, but narrowly within the guidelines. McCoy’s opponent isn’t just smearing, he’s also mentioning that candidate mcCoy doesn’t plan to do anything else either, which is the actual issue and can be verified on McCoy’s platform. I particularly dislike the characterization of McCoy; it is inflammatory, if only mildly so.
I would prefer that McCoy’s opponent Run an ad like this: " Jack McCoy voted against the minimum wage 10 times! He says that he will continue to oppose raising the minimum wage if elected. Bart Bradshaw has always supported raising the minimum wage, looking out for working families; and if elected will continue to do so. "
This is a pretty blase’ ad, and is only subtly different. Here, Bradshaw is characterizing himself, rather than making a direct assault on McCoy leaving the listener to make an inference rather than take a direct message. It could be argued that the result is the same, but there is a difference in delivery.
Yea, I think in general such rules would lead to endless quibbling about what counts as “factual”. Even Palin’s “Death Panels” comment had some extremely teneous basis in fact, according to her she was refering to provisions for end of life counseling in the Health Care Bill. Most political falsehoods are similarly extremely exaggerated references to things that are real, so that when they get asked by reporters politicians can point to something and claim it was the inspiration for their comments rather then just admit they were full of it, even if most reasonable people would still call it a lie.
And attack ads would simply be done by proxies instead of the candidate themselves. The net change to political campaigning after a few election cycles to adjust to the new rules would be nil.
Are you kidding me? How would any of this be enforced?
You’re talking about splitting hairs here – “I’m sorry, Mr. Bradshaw, in a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court, your ad was slightly too negative, and so you are going to be sanctioned by the FEC. If you had only used the word “however” in place of the word “but,” and included two more verbs in the future tense, and replaced that picture of a crying little girl with a picture of a frowning man, you would have been okay. You may not know what you did wrong, but don’t do it again.”
It seems to me that the main problem with your proposals is that you are trying to compel politicians to campaign in a way that simply appeals to you, rather than instituting understandable rules.
I think of it like building a “good” house: there are regulations about where the studs and beams belong, and those regulations can be followed because they are based on measurements. But your proposals are more like, “a good house shouldn’t have too much red paint.” Well, how much is too much? What is red? Who really cares?
“After the invasion, Weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. Bart Bradshaw supported the invasion and supports an aggressive defense policy. If elected He will continue to strongly support national defense efforts.” -stadard endorsement
Unacceptable:
" After the invasion, Weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. McCoy voted against the invasion and placed America in danger of attack. McCoy wants to strip our defense budget, making us usafe."-Standard endorsement
Both contain the factual element, and both are supporting Bradshaw’s stance on national defense. In the first, he mentions his vote, and goes on to state that he will continue to support such policies if elected. In the second ad, Bradshaw is making is making unprovable assertions that the Iraqis were intent on directly attacking us. It was only through the efforts of Bradshaw that mass destruction was averted! moreover, his opponent didn’t support it, and wants to open us up to attack in the future! Ad one is factual, and keeps to Bradshaw’s record and platform. Ad two is inflammatory and based on unprovable hypotheticals.