Truth in Advertising

[Michael Laprarie <mlaprarie@greatventure.com>]

I have not seen much discussion regarding standards for political advertising, specifically trying to control the use of inflammatory, slanderous, and libelous statements in political advertising.  Free speech, as we all know, does not include speech that is untrue or harmful.  Particularly shameful in this area have been the attempts by the NAACP to use racism and fear in order to scare their contituency.  This year, they ran ads implying that G.W. Bush approved of the lynching of James Byrd in Texas.  In 1998, they ran radio ads in St. Louis implying that Republicans were responsible for drive-by shootings, cross burnings, and church arson.

Is it right for Tylenol to publish a magazine ad whose lead sentence is "Taking Bayer asprin can lead to overdose and death."  Is it right for Bayer to respond by publishing, "Taking Tylenol can cause liver damage and lead to premature death."  Even those statements can be true in extreme cases, we would never stand for that kind of deliberately inflammatory language in a commercial advertisement, so why do we allow them in politics?  Here in my home state of Oklahoma, we just lost another bill in the state legislature that would have required political ads to follow the same truth in advertising standards that commercial advertisements must follow.  How unfortunate.

To briefly summarize my position, I believe in free-will donations to any political candidate in any amount, as long as the donations are subject to public disclosure.  The only spending limit I would impose is a limit on non-solicited advertising directed at the public at large, such as TV and radio ads, print ads, and placards.  No gratis ads would be allowed.  The spending limit would be set by Federal law and a flat rate would apply to all states.  (Some would argue that this would cripple candidates that have to advertise in expensive metropolitan areas like New York or Los Angeles; I counter by saying that if the citizens manage to make their ends meet, the candidates should be able to as well.  Who knows - it might even give them the incentive to try and lower the cost of living.)  

As for direct campaigning, which would be personal appearances at rallies and whistle-stops, and direct mail and email to loyal party members, this would be unlimited.  I would hope that it would make the candidates interact more with the people instead of spending so much time with image consultants and spin doctors.  

Civic groups and private organizations would also have a spending cap on the amount of public messages that they could buy, but they would be free to stage all of the rallies and direct mail campaigns that they wanted to.

But most importantly, all public political advertisements would have to follow the same truth in advertising laws as commercial advertisements do.  For example, if you are going to produce an ad that features G.W. Bush's head superimposed over a Confederate flag (as was done in New Jersey), then you'd better have documented proof that Bush is a white supremacist.

The desired effect from truth in advertising would be that candidates would be forced to spend more time promoting why they are the best choice on their own merits instead of slinging mud at their opponents.  That would be political advertising that we could all benefit from.