Barack Obama endorsed an ad that called John McCain’s health care plan “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” In response, McCain endorsed an ad that claimed Obama’s plan would “rob 50 million employees of their health coverage.” According to www.factcheck.org, both are false. And according to the Federal Communications Commission, both are perfectly legal to air on television.
In a 2006 political broadcasting advisory, the FCC outlined the rules broadcasters have to follow when selling ad space to political candidates. In the advisory, the FCC stated: “A (station) may not edit or censor the content of a candidate’s (ad). Even if the ad is of poor quality, contains an outrageous message, is part of a ‘smear’ campaign, or is a ‘negative ad’… you may not edit out libelous material.”
The rules only apply to federal candidates, which include presidential candidates as well as senatorial and representative candidates. In the 2008 election, that includes Obama and McCain, as well as Gordon Smith and Jeff Merkley, the Oregon senatorial candidates.
At a glance
| What students have to say: “The ads have become almost like a fist fight,” Matt Reis, junior “From what I’ve seen, they’re not really saying anything,” Alicia Van Bourg, sophomore “I guess I trust them,” Heidi Dobratz, junior Ads that have falsities, according to www.factcheck.org: Ad: “Joe the Plumber” (McCain) Falsity: McCain claimed Obama’s tax cuts are “welfare,” while calling his own “reform.” He also said “hard-working families” and seniors would pay more taxes. This is false. Ad: both candidates on health care Falsity: Obama claimed McCain’s health care coverage would be the largest middle-class tax increase in history. McCain said that Obama’s plan would “rob 50 million employees of their health coverage.” Both are false. Ad: “Folks” (McCain) Falsity: McCain called Obama the most liberal U.S. senator. This was true in 2007, but not in 2006 or 2005, when Obama was 10th and 16th, respectively. Ad: “Ambition” (McCain) Falsity: McCain said Obama “pals around” with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and lied about their relationship. There is no evidence they were ever close, and the last meeting between the two was a chance encounter on the street. Ad: McCain’s Social Security plan (Obama) Falsity: Obama said McCain would have invested Social Security money in the stock market, and tried to scare viewers by using Lehman Bros. et al as an example of what would have happened to retirement funds. In reality, McCain’s plan would have been voluntary, invested only up to one-third of Social Security money per person, and would not have been in any of those firms. Ad: “Dangerous” (McCain) Falsity: McCain called Obama “dishonorable” on his stance on the Iraq War. He said Obama accused the troops of atrocities and wanted to cut off funding for them. Actually, Obama was criticizing U.S. military strategy, not the troops, and the pulled funding was part of a bill to bring the troops home. Funding would only have been cut had the president not complied with Congress’ timeline. |
Commercial advertising is subject to punishment for “misleading or deceptive advertising,” according to University professor of advertising Kim Sheehan. Ads aren’t scrutinized ahead of time, she said, but stations may refuse to run an ad at their discretion. That rarely happens, and it’s difficult to prove false advertising because there is a provision for “puffery,” the practice of making claims so large they’re unprovable. But even so, commercial ads are held to much tighter standards than
political ads.
Political ads are created by advertising executives who are temporarily hired by a candidate’s campaign committee. They are familiar with advertising laws, Sheehan said, but they still don’t have to follow them.
Sheehan doesn’t think the lack of regulation on political ads is an acceptable way to advertise. Although political discourse is important, Sheehan said, she thinks this First Amendment right has been abused by all the candidates in recent elections.
In addition to disagreeing on principle with the lack of regulation for political ads, Sheehan added that statistically it’s a bad idea. When a commercial ad sells a poor product, people realize the product isn’t worth buying, and that ad will only convince about 15 percent of consumers. But “there’s no market share with elections,” Sheehan said.
In other words, honest political advertising is much more important because the outcome is all or nothing for each candidate and voters must live with the outcome for another four years.
Rebecca Force, University professor of electronic media, agrees with Sheehan.
“I’m not sure the public knows that these ads don’t run any truth test,” she said.
For commercial ads, Force said, the station that airs them can be held responsible for the content. This regulation holds strictly commercial ads to a higher standard because a third party has a vested interest in their content. Political ads face no such scrutiny.
There is an upside to the system, Force said.
“If you know an ad is inaccurate or has shaded the truth, you know more about that candidate than you did,” she added.
Kyu Ho Youm, University professor of communication law, agrees with Force on her last point. The lack of regulation on political ads is an example of the marketplace of ideas, he said, one of the foundations of First Amendment law. The concept is that the truth will usually prevail, and that falsity will backfire on those spreading them.
When it comes to political speech, it must always be protected in a democracy, Youm added. If politicians are threatened with punishment, they will hold back, and Youm said that for campaigns to “push the envelope” is important because it gets the public more engaged.
The lack of regulation on the ads doesn’t bother KVAL national sales coordinator Sheryl Knox. She said the ads do put spin on the issues, but she doesn’t find it unethical.
“That’s just politics,” Knox said.
Even though the station has to run the ads, the news department has complete freedom to question the candidates and their claims, even if the ad ran on the station.
Whether the questionable truth of political ads is ethical or not, many people agree that negative advertising backfires.
Sheehan said studies consistently show that negative advertising “disenfranchises people from the discourse.”
Knox said that while she no longer even thinks about the ads she airs, she’s no longer sure she wants to vote for any of the candidates. She’d rather hear about what they’ll do, not negative attacks on the other.
A number of University students agreed with Knox’s sentiments.
Junior Matt Reis and sophomore Alicia Van Bourg both said they don’t want to listen to negative campaigning – they’d rather the candidates make positive statements about themselves.
[email protected]
