Political Advertising on the Hook

To start, let me recommend three web pages that discuss some issues connected with political advertising, explain some principles, and describe political advertising powers and system. The first, “False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! – Or Maybe Not” by Brooks Jackson on FactCHeck.org, brings up the fact that in the USA there is no legal protection of truth in political advertising what so ever, what means that political candidates can lie in their ads as much as they like about anything without facing any legal consequences. That applies in the same way for negative advertising as well. Moreover, according to the law, media has no right to refuse a political ad based on an opinion that it is untruthful.  Therefore, in the USA politicians can freely produce tons of dishonest spots falsely attacking each other, and every TV or radio channel must accept them unless there is something technically wrong with them. As Jackson explains, that legal mess is happening under the power of the First amendment of the USA constitution, that protects the free speech. At the same time, the author questions possible solutions to that problem and points out that in the states where legal restrictions of political advertising were sat, the effect was rather insufficient. These are very important points regarding our debate, so I strongly recommend getting some more information on that web page. (http://www.factcheck.org/2004/06/false-ads-there-oughta-be-a-law-or-maybe-not/).

            Secondly, there are “Negative Campaigning Is Good for America” by Dick Morris on U.S.News & World Repor and “Political Advertising Regulation:
An Unconstitutional Menace?” by Stephen Bates on GATO Institute that technically support the opposite approach to political advertising – no boundaries. Morris claims that people can distinguish for themselves what is true and what is a lie. However, he still reminds us that political advertising should be trustworthy. Then, he makes a strong point saying that negative advertising actually helps to uncover the true and that it is one of the few ways in which voters can get the real picture. There is definitely something about that point; negative advertising for sure can help to uncover the bad side of the politicians. However, in my opinion, attacking ads are too often untruthful and the voters do not always distinguish the lie, what makes Morris` approach a little naïve. Nevertheless, that article represents one strong theory about negative advertising and so it is important to look at it (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/10/06/dick-morris-negative-campaigning-is-good-for-america).

 On the other hand, Bates rejects the idea of any restriction at all. He represents the opposition of Jacksons approach, claiming that legal boundaries to political advertising are unconstitutional and undemocratic, and that the first amendment is non-negotiable. In short, he says once we have a free speech law, we should not under any circumstances make exceptions. He also goes deep inside political advertising legal issues, discusses some proposals for advertising legal restrictions, comments on specific events, and he also makes an interesting comparison of how much people gain from advertising and the news. This article is very long and complicated, but I would still appreciate your attention on it (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa112.html).

Reference:

Bates, Stephen. “Political Advertising Regulation:
An Unconstitutional

            Menace?”. Gato Institute. September 22, 1988.

            <http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa112.html>

Jackson, Brooks. “False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! – Or Maybe Not”.

          FactCheck.org. June 3, 2004. May 10, 2007.

          <http://www.aef.com/pdf/BERGER~Ch6.pdf>

Morris, Dick. “Negative Campaigning Is Good for America”. U.S.News.

         October 6, 2008.

         <http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/10/06/dick-morris-negative-campaigning-is-good-  for-america>