# Questions About Commercial Disclaimers

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-commercial-disclaimers/36783>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [October 13, 2000, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-commercial-disclaimers/36783 "2000-10-13T13:15:52Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![HeyHomie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heyhomie/32/207_2.png) [@HeyHomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HeyHomie)\
**Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-commercial-disclaimers/36783/1 "2000-10-13T13:15:52Z")

</div>

**#1: Anheuser Busch: St. Louis, MO**

Why is it that whenever there’s a commercial for an adult beverage, a voice at the end reveals the name and location of the product’s brewery/distillery/vineyard? I know that the short answer to this question is: There’s a law. But what is the justification for such a law?

**#2: Paid for by People for Bush**

Same thing with disclaimers at the end of political ads. Why is it necessary to reveal who paid for a political advertisement? It would seem pretty obvious that any political ad would be paid for by a group supporting the candidate/cause in question. IOW, it’s pretty obvious that an ad extolling the eratication of handguns is **not** paid for by the NRA. So what gives?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\
**Post date:** [October 13, 2000, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-commercial-disclaimers/36783/2 "2000-10-13T13:44:55Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by rastahomie \*  
> \*\*#2: Paid for by People for Bush
> 
> Same thing with disclaimers at the end of political ads. Why is it necessary to reveal who paid for a political advertisement? It would seem pretty obvious that any political ad would be paid for by a group supporting the candidate/cause in question. IOW, it’s pretty obvious that an ad extolling the eratication of handguns is **not** paid for by the NRA. So what gives? \*\*

I can think of one extreme case, where it might not be so obvious. Say some “evil” Democrats aired a political commercial that was just over-the-top. Like claiming Gore was going to lower the age of consent to 12, make gang-rape a $25 ticket, or promise that he would be instrumental in creating a new “hardcore lesbian porn-Internet”. And they make it look like it’s sleazy trash-talkin’ Republicans that are the one doing it - their media even jumps in on the bandwagon, having been purposefully leaked info that the commercial was funded by “right-wing white-seperatist Rosicrucians living in a compound outside of Lynchem, Montana”. This would be quite deceptive and damaging to the other party, and the poor cow-like masses in the American herd would never sort it out before election day. They would just vote against Bush because “he’s a nasty man!”.

But that’s an extreme case…I’m sure the main reason is general public information.