# Killing the Campaign to restore sanity to US politics **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 4, 2010, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994 "2010-10-04T12:22:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/21 "2010-10-04T16:13:58Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > > [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > > > It could be argued that the result is the same, but there is a difference in delivery. > > 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? How hard is it to state: Your ads should be talking about your own record and plans for the future. Ads whose content consists entirely of material about another candidate or contain unsupported claims, statistics or “facts” are unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/22 "2010-10-04T16:20:10Z")
> [@Simplicio](#): > > 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. snip. Something is either factual or it is not. Palin was way out of line with that comment, but look how much steam it got. THAT is an excellent example of the problem I’m trying address. People didn’t hear: “They want to add end of life counseling in, and I’m against that.” They heard: " They are going to have panels to kill your granma!" That’s like saying you wrestled a two ton great white shark for twenty straight hours until it tapped out and you rode it back the 100 miles inshore to the dock when you actually caught a tiny sunfish on a bread ball at the lake, then claiming, well what I meant is that I caught a fish. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/23 "2010-10-04T16:24:24Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > How hard is it to state: Your ads should be talking about your own record and plans for the future. Ads whose content consists entirely of material about another candidate or contain unsupported claims, statistics or “facts” are unacceptable. But you said my version of the script about Adam Schiff supporting the minimum wage and saying that Jack McCoy doesn’t care about working families is (my words) barely acceptable. It talks about Schiff’s plans, and criticizes McCoy’s, and uses facts. For whatever reason, you think it would be better if it was rewritten WITH THE SAME CONTENT but with a different tone. Did my version of the ad have too much red paint? Not to make this personal, but I’m not even sure if you are interpreting your own rules correctly, which indicates that the rules are too vague. ETA: Again I ask, what’s the penalty for violating the rules? ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/24 "2010-10-04T16:42:31Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > > [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > > > How hard is it to state: Your ads should be talking about your own record and plans for the future. Ads whose content consists entirely of material about another candidate or contain unsupported claims, statistics or “facts” are unacceptable. > > But you said my version of the script about Adam Schiff supporting the minimum wage and saying that Jack McCoy doesn’t care about working families is (my words) barely acceptable. It talks about Schiff’s plans, and criticizes McCoy’s, and uses facts. For whatever reason, you think it would be better if it was rewritten WITH THE SAME CONTENT but with a different tone. Did my version of the ad have too much red paint? > > Not to make this personal, but I’m not even sure if you are interpreting your own rules correctly, which indicates that the rules are too vague. > > ETA: Again I ask, what’s the penalty for violating the rules? Your example was subtle, so i did the best I could with it. It’s not perfect, and the rules might well be too vague. That’s why i put it here to discuss as an idea. As to penalties, I’m not sure. Part of me would like fines, but perhaps if they rack up enough infractions the FCC just takes away their advertising TV/Radio privileges for a period of time. Every day counts in a campaign, that would hurt pretty bad. Maybe none of that would work. Perhaps they are simply tallied by a watchdog group who then keeps a confidence rating that is shown during debates? For example perhaps McCoy has been playing dirtier than he should and has been making a load of wild claims and unsupported statements. During his debates, his marker might read lower than Bradshaw’s. I don’t know I hadn’t thought that far yet really. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/25 "2010-10-04T17:03:45Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > > [@Simplicio](#): > > > > 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. > > snip. > > Something is either factual or it is not. Palin was way out of line with that comment, but look how much steam it got. THAT is an excellent example of the problem I’m trying address. People didn’t hear: “They want to add end of life counseling in, and I’m against that.” They heard: " They are going to have panels to kill your granma!" That’s like saying you wrestled a two ton great white shark for twenty straight hours until it tapped out and you rode it back the 100 miles inshore to the dock when you actually caught a tiny sunfish on a bread ball at the lake, then claiming, well what I meant is that I caught a fish. But Palin can just make it a semantic argument, and in semantic arguments, I don’t think its true that “Something is either factual or it is not” . Her claim is that what she meant by “Death Panels” is end of life counseling. Of course, its a pretty big stretch to say that a “Death Panel” is a word for such counseling, but there isn’t really any way to prove that that’s not what Palin meant by the term. Also note that Sarah Palin wasn’t running for any office when she made her death panel comments, so even if your law passed and worked as you envision, it wouldn’t have made any difference in Palin’s rhetoric against the Health Care Bill. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/26 "2010-10-04T17:33:14Z")
So, basically, what you want to do is eliminate opinion and non-factual campaigning? So Obama’s ‘Hope and change’ slogan would be illegal? Wearing a flag or other overly patriotic symbols is prohibited? Saying that a woman should have a right of choice/fetus’s should have a right to life is not allowed in public discourse? Saying a war is immoral, a stimulus was needed, or that society should provide health care for all would violate the law? Every one of those examples would violate the rules as you stated since not a single one of them is factual. They’re all opinion, and apparently opinion should be outlawed. Congrats, you just proposed an idea that would be the largest violation of human rights that Americans have experienced since we created interment camps seven decades ago. Perhaps I shouldn’t have said that, if your idea ever became law then the FCC will forcefully silence me for it. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/27 "2010-10-04T17:39:38Z")
My off-the-cuff reaction? We _ **already** _ have a system where one Party is much more inclined to the pursuit of facthood and truth than the other side. Guess which side tends to win? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/28 "2010-10-04T17:52:36Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Acceptable: > > “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! No, he isn’t making any such assertions. He doesn’t say anything of the sort. > [@](#): > > 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. The second is no more or less unprovable than the first. This goes back to what was asked earlier - who gets to decide this? Do we appoint them, like judges, or elect them? And the notion of a state-sponsored somebody deciding what a citizen may or may not say in support of a political position is an absolute non-starter. The person - in my opinion, the **only** person - who is qualified to judge the truth or otherwise of campaign statements is the voter. Efforts, however well-meaning, to take this responsibility away from the voter and give it to the governemnt are, and properly should be, doomed right from the get-go. Because nobody is any better than anyone else, consistently. No matter who you choose to sit in judgment on campaign ads, his or her judgment is just as subject to regression to the mean as anyone else’s. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/29 "2010-10-04T18:06:01Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > My off-the-cuff reaction? > > We _ **already** _ have a system where one Party is much more inclined to the pursuit of facthood and truth than the other side. > > Guess which side tends to win? Both, from time to time? I mean, right now the Democrats are in control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress… is that the dishonest party or the honest one? Will that change when the GOP takes one more houses this fall? As to the OP, my opinion is that negative campaigning is essential to the process. I’m not always just voting for what my candidate is for, but often against what the other candidate is for (either in specific or in detail). For example, a ubiquitous attack ad in my congressional district this fall is 100% about the GOP candidate’s ethics violations while working for the former governor. I think this is very relevant, and a large reason why I won’t be voting for him. I have to think that both in content and tone it would violate your guidelines. I also agree with **Shodan** (_gasp_) that offloading the responsibility of determining the truthfulness of politicians claims is a rather large blow to the democratic process. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/30 "2010-10-04T18:10:53Z")
> [@godix](#): > > So, basically, what you want to do is eliminate opinion and non-factual campaigning? So Obama’s ‘Hope and change’ slogan would be illegal? Wearing a flag or other overly patriotic symbols is prohibited? Saying that a woman should have a right of choice/fetus’s should have a right to life is not allowed in public discourse? Saying a war is immoral, a stimulus was needed, or that society should provide health care for all would violate the law? > > Every one of those examples would violate the rules as you stated since not a single one of them is factual. They’re all opinion, and apparently opinion should be outlawed. Congrats, you just proposed an idea that would be the largest violation of human rights that Americans have experienced since we created interment camps seven decades ago. > > Perhaps I shouldn’t have said that, if your idea ever became law then the FCC will forcefully silence me for it. So the current system where we spend more time talking about non issues, dirt from college days, made up stuff, and opinion is a superiour method for delivering the actual facts to people? ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/31 "2010-10-04T18:18:13Z")
> [@Acid Lamp](#): > > What would be the reasonable effect of this sort of campaign reform? If you make attack ads illegal then it’s a good bet they’ll disappear. To what end, I have not a clue. Do they give you the vapors? You even remark that the two proffered parties are very similar, so I must be missing the point of this exercise. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/32 "2010-10-04T19:22:44Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > So the current system where we spend more time talking about non issues, dirt from college days, made up stuff, and opinion is a superiour method for delivering the actual facts to people? Who said the goal of political campaigns is to brings facts to the people? The goal is to win elections. You may think that voters should only be swayed by facts, but about 350 million Americans think otherwise. If they agreed with you, then emotional appeals wouldn’t work after all. Which kinda brings to mind a question. The entire premise here boils down to ‘People don’t act the way I think they should act, so we need a law to make them act like I want them to’. Why exactly should you be allowed to force me and everyone else in the country to cast our vote for the reasons you think we should? The idea behind democracy is that someone voting for Palin because they thought she was sexier than Michelle Obama is just as valid as someone basing their vote on a factual analysis of the issues. It is not, nor should it be, up to you to decide who’s voting reasons are superior and enforced across the nation. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/33 "2010-10-04T19:33:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > > > 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. > > > > Care to address the idea instead? > > 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. While the OP says that candidates should be held to a higher standard, the fact that the current incumbents will make the rules makes this very dangerous. I can imagine someone challenging an incumbent being held to an impossibly high standard. If I understand it correctly, the purpose of the First Amendment is to ensure that the truth be discovered through open discussion, and not defined by anyone in power. So I think the problems are bigger than just the practical ones you mention. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/34 "2010-10-04T19:48:42Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > So the current system where\*\* we spend more time talking about non issues, \*\*dirt from college days, made up stuff, and opinion is a superiour method for delivering the actual facts to people? As Tonto so wisely stated to the Lone Ranger after being surrounded by Indians, “What do you mean “we,” white man?” Sure, the news is always filled with stories of what Sarah Palin’s brood is doing now, or some such nonsense. I don’t care about it and it doesn’t really impact my political views. It is just like how sometimes I see ads on TV asking me to sell my gold for quick profit. I simply pay no attention to them. I also don’t argue that advertisers should be prohibited from making their products/services more appealing by focusing less on facts. Although, it would be pretty funny if there were a law that advertisers had to stick to the facts at all costs, and not say bad things about their competitors. “McDonalds has the Big Mac! It costs $3.15 if you buy the sandwich. There are 850 calories in it, and two slices of USDA beef. We have served millions of them. We would really like it if you bought a Big Mac today. Good day and have a pleasant tomorrow. Thank you. This has been McDonalds speaking to you on the television.” ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/35 "2010-10-04T20:05:50Z")
I think it is perfectly reasonable to point out shortcomings with your opponent’s record (of course, you also have to put forth a program of your own). Negative campaigning, to me, at least, is attacking your opponent’s \*motives \*for taking the positions and actions in his record. Thus, I think it is perfectly OK to say, “Jack McCoy voted against the minimum wage 10 times!” if, in fact, McCoy did do so. What I don’t think is OK is saying “He did this because he hates the working man/is in the pocket of the bankers/is a slimy bastard”. ---
**Author:** ![B.Serum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/b.serum/32/14266_2.png) [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/36 "2010-10-04T20:46:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. I tend to feel the same way **BUT** free speech does have its limitations (yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.) and it seems to me that some of what the OP is aiming for could be feasible under libel & slander laws — I hasten to add, if it weren’t painfully obvious, that I am not a lawyer. Also, what we’re encountering isn’t a new problem, but it has intensified with the pervasiveness of the communication age. And [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) is neither big enough or ubiquitous enough to turn back the tide of bullshit coming out of politicos’ and pundits’ pusses. The situation really bothers me. I truly feel the careless methods of the Glenn Becks and Michael Moores divide and thereby weaken this country as much (if not more) than their respective professed attempts to save it. Not coincidentally, it’s one of the reasons that keeps me coming back to the Dope. You/we come at a topic from all angles and have the annoying but healthy tendency to yelp “Cite” when the bullshitometer leans into the red zone. ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/37 "2010-10-04T20:54:36Z")
> [@godix](#): > > Who said the goal of political campaigns is to brings facts to the people? The goal is to win elections. You may think that voters should only be swayed by facts, but about 350 million Americans think otherwise. If they agreed with you, then emotional appeals wouldn’t work after all. > > Which kinda brings to mind a question. The entire premise here boils down to ‘People don’t act the way I think they should act, so we need a law to make them act like I want them to’. Why exactly should you be allowed to force me and everyone else in the country to cast our vote for the reasons you think we should? The idea behind democracy is that someone voting for Palin because they thought she was sexier than Michelle Obama is just as valid as someone basing their vote on a factual analysis of the issues. It is not, nor should it be, up to you to decide who’s voting reasons are superior and enforced across the nation. Um no. I think that while people should have the right to vote based on whatever they like, the candidates themselves ought to be held to a standard of accountability in their speech in direct media. I’m not suggesting that analysts, commentators, the public in general etc should think or vote a certain way or have their right to be an idiot curtailed in any manner. I likewise mentioned that I think that all web media is a free play zone as well since the candidate is directly responsible for it’s content. What I am advocating is that if candidate McCoy runs an ad calling Brashaw a child eating cannibal puppy raper, he better have the police reports to back it up. Limiting their speech to their own platforms and factual matters would be a good help in curtailing social idiocy. People may have the right to be morons, but that does not make it an equitable position to those who bother to learn about issues and make an informed decision. If some pundit wants to start a meme that McCoy is going to beat up the ruskies with his ten foot dong, that’s fine. If McCoy says it, he better whip it out. Get it? ---
**Author:** ![B.Serum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/b.serum/32/14266_2.png) [@B.Serum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/B.Serum)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/38 "2010-10-04T21:04:00Z")
> [@B.Serum](#): > > I tend to feel the same way **BUT** free speech does have its limitations (yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.) and it seems to me that some of what the OP is aiming for could be feasible under libel & slander laws — I hasten to add, if it weren’t painfully obvious, that I am not a lawyer. Responding to my own hypothesis: [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org)’s [article on the legality of truth and mistruths in campaigning.](http://www.factcheck.org/2004/06/false-ads-there-oughta-be-a-law-or-maybe-not/) ---
**Author:** ![Acid\_Lamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Acid\_Lamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acid_Lamp)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/39 "2010-10-04T21:19:48Z")
> [@B.Serum](#): > > > [@B.Serum](#): > > > > I tend to feel the same way **BUT** free speech does have its limitations (yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.) and it seems to me that some of what the OP is aiming for could be feasible under libel & slander laws — I hasten to add, if it weren’t painfully obvious, that I am not a lawyer. > > Responding to my own hypothesis: [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org)’s [article on the legality of truth and mistruths in campaigning.](http://www.factcheck.org/2004/06/false-ads-there-oughta-be-a-law-or-maybe-not/) That was interesting, and sort of sad too. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994/40 "2010-10-04T21:47:18Z")
> [@Acid\_Lamp](#): > > Candidates for office may spread their platforms and political beliefs in the following manner: > > 1. 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. > > 2. Candidates may utilize social media pages as per above re: pol speech . > > 3. 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. > > 4. 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. > > Thoughts? Greaaatt! _Who decides_ what is a violation of this code? The Vestal Virgins? The Oracle at Delphi? :smack: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/killing-the-campaign-to-restore-sanity-to-us-politics/555994.md?page=3)