Ask Mike: Approving This Message
Hey Guys,
The presidential campaign is heating up. Speeches are getting nastier, the blogs are getting tougher, and the campaign commercials are running about as often as Seinfeld re-runs. One thing that got me wondering–after each campaign ad, one of the two presidential candidates says he “approves this message.” How did this start?
As I quickly learned, candidates don’t do this because they want to–they do it because they have to. The disclaimers are a direct result of the campaign reform laws of 2002 (co-sponsored by John McCain). The goal of the laws, according to an article from CNN, is to keep soft money, the “unlimited and unregulated contributions to national political parties,” out of campaign commercials. Additionally, the statement from each candidate is designed to force candidates to take credit for any commercial mudslinging. Pretty clever.
But does this mean dirty politics are a thing of the past? Of course not! PC Magazine explains that during the 2004 election, the more aggressive rhetoric simply moved from TV and onto the Internet. On the Web, campaign ads aren’t regulated so things can get far more negative.
What are your opinions of campaign ads? Do they have any effect on how you vote? Do you find them informative or irritating? Are you glad that today’s candidates are forced to take credit for what they say in ads? Please leave an approved message below.
Thanks for reading,
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Rating:
(Be the first!) - Permalink
- Comments (25)
Loading ...
Subscribe
I’m not old enough to vote yet, but I do pay a little attention to what they are saying in the ad’s. It seems like they are barley paying attention to what we waant to hear about their plans to do what…all the do is talk about eachother. They are more concerned with hoping to make the other people lose votes by making them look bad.
Makes me not want to vote when I get old enough.
I think mud slinging is a tactic designed to keep the American public from noticing the real problems we are facing as a nation. The worse our problems are and the more serious our situation, the more you hear negative campaigning. I find it irratating and when I hear it, it makes me wonder exactly what are the issues these Democan/Republicrats are trying to hide? They real issues must be pretty dire for the mud to be going back and forth that fast. Our country is headed for some big problems!!
I find campaign ads irritating from the candidate I don’t support and embarrassing from the one I do, because the truth is skewed like the deck of a sinking ship. Claiming approval doesn’t mean the candidate takes responsibility for telling the truth; it simply means that he approves the fact that it arose from and was funded by his campaign rather than being a spurious message from another group (the “soft money” people). That’s all.
Let’s face it, campaign law is becoming as convoluted as tax law–to the point where if you want to do something, all you need to do is figure out where the loophole is. Years ago, Handgun Control, Inc. filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission claiming that the NRA was violating its tax exempt nonprofit status by sending out voting advice. The complaint was dismissed because the NRA sent out the advice to its own members, which it is allowed to do. Then the NRA told the FEC to look at HCI, with the result that HCI was told to revamp its membership criteria or lose its tax exempt status. They were claiming people as members who had made a one-time donation years ago, in order to inflate the number of “members.”
What I don’t understand is that churches are threatened if they openly endorse a candidate, even in their own building. I would think it’s pretty obvious that anyone attending services in a church could be counted as a member, or is attending a members’ organization voluntarily as an outsider. If there’s a dispute among the members about who’s being supported, that’s an issue for the members to resolve. Not one the FEC or IRS should get involved in.
Nothing has changed ,it is still shake with the right hand and stab with the left .
I am wondering why all the speeches Obama has given
and has been shown on u tube have not been shown to the general public .
Where is the press when it comes to telling the truth about this non patriot ? And I mean this in every sense of the word !
I dont allow propoganda from either of them to effect my choice. After what many political professors point to as the dirtiest campaign in history being the “Clintons”X’s2 for 8, these trades of insults mean nothing to me. The important thing is to read between the insults and research it yourself from real sources, not Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews, Kieth Olbermann or Bill Maher but educate yourself and read actual bills and public record of what these guys realy did. I know this is going to sound biased but with Obama unfortionatly there isn’t much to research because he’s done nothing. Adds should be more intune with what they are going to do to give America back to the people, this pumped up hype of “Change” is the greatest line of political BS in history and every person who ever ran in the last 60 years has been saying this with no results. This elections shouldn’t be about letting some ignorant fools sell you the line that they are going to go into the White house and start changing things because if anyone wants that then I question thier mental wellbeing. It should be about handing over America back to the People and letting the People make the changes according to what we want, not what some agenda based radical wants.
Remove the TV ads that attack people directly, I say this because based on 99% of what I read our society isn’t smart enough to read between the attacks to gain the facts. Only allow ads that outline what they will do for our Country. I am so sick of hearing about McCain not being able to use a keyboard because he cant type, yet the man cant due to war injuries and if people think this is something new about John McCain maybe they should play some reruns of when he talked about it in a meeting with the VFW back in 1984 during the Ronald years. On the flip side I dont want to hear about Obama and his hollywood persona. Big deal, he was a star after being on Oprah and so what if the media is biased? I would hope that this would enrage our society to stick it to agenda and demand answers but in this time in day my opinions of being responsable and dealing with practical reason are considered “right wing neocon warmongering republican bias even though I am a registerd Ind.
what are the things you will miss most
Sometimes they do get irritating, but sometimes it’s also interesting to see what the politicians (say they) have done. Or how they can try to break the other one down.
In this day and age, where the masses are influenced by media, it is also interesting to see how many people sway back and forth from one candidate to the other.
I’m Jake and I approve this message.
Political mudslinging. As mentioned by so many here:
1) It draws the average person away from the real challenges that are ahead of us. Instead of telling us their solutions to challenges the country is having, they tell us why the opponent isn’t the solution.
2) Sadly, the average person watching these will buy right into it instead of doing their own research and thinking for himself. It’s unfortunate, but it’s true, and that’s why these types of ads still run.
More reason to avoid politics altogether. You know, politicians used to do their job for free. Now they get paid plenty of money for “serving” and “volunteering” their time towards the public interest.
its just a shame that people take in faith what is told in those comercials. people on all sides spit out why and how there foe is wrong for the office they seek. using the most dameging rhetoric they can. while throwing small kernals of there agenda to us in contrast of the mud they just threw. i agree that the commercails should only state what that person hopes to acheive in there office not loose data and hear say about theres foes agenda and goals.
Really I think it is just getting rediculous. They spend more time bashing each others campaigns then talking about the real issues at hand. I would rather know what they plan to do for us as a country then what stupid thing they slipped up on this week.
Watching as they bash each other really just makes me not want to vote for them more. Then adding slutty dim-witted celebraties in the loop just makes things worse. If you are going to associate them into your add then your character itself must not be that grand. Though celebraties and politics is a completely different story all together.
I think that the ads could be informative but they aren’t. If you are going to ‘get the dirt’ on the other candidate at least make it something worth knowing, not that ‘he is a celebraty’… oh wow that just made me want to drop what I was doing and vote McCain – NOT.
I am completely for them having to take credit for what they say in the ads. It helps us know which stupid ads they actually approved. But what I really wonder is if they actually watch them, or just ‘trust’ that the people making them for them know what they are doing and what the people want. Because if that is so, that are completely off key!
Give us a candidate worth voting for, that actually wants to change our economy and doesn’t fall pray to the ever lasting ’slam the other guy (or girl) to show who is the biggest bully of them all’.
THANK YOU
I think it’s good that the candidates are forced to take credit for the ads, but they don’t really influence the way I vote at all. With few exceptions, for every major issue all Republicans and Democrats feel exactly the same way as everyone else in their party does. It doesn’t really matter what is said in the campaign ads or even the debates. It barely even matters who the Republican or Democratic candidate even is, because if it wasn’t McCain and Obama, it would be two other candidates that feel the exact same way on each issue. I never understood why all the networks have round the clock news coverage on election night anyway. Why buy into all the hype? Just cast your vote, get a good night’s sleep, and find out who won in the morning. Do we really need the play by play? Obviously, I’m very cynical about politics in general. I really wish that more of us would stop allowing ourselves to be brainwashed by the media and realize that WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. I do think it’s a great sign of our evolution as a nation that we have an African American and a female in the race. No matter who wins, this is an important moment in American history.
From what I know and have studied (just graduated with my B.S. in Political Science), the “…and I approve this message” phenomenon came to be after the growing popularity of 527 groups, aka. political action committes (think Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or MoveOn.org).
As these 527 groups (as they are known by because of where they fall under the U.S. tax code) have gained popularity because of their ability to garner higher donation amounts than candidates directly, they have began to put out campaign ads on behalf of candidates (although indirectly).
While the majority of the time there is no problem with it, sometimes these PACs can take their message in directions which a candidate might not normally do, or take the cause too far (if you remember the Swift Boat ads against Kerry in ‘04 and all the fallout from those..).
In essence, by saying “… and I approve this message”, the candidate is saying to the audience “this is ME talking”. Basically it gives the candidate a way to point the finger and say, hey I have no control over what so and so PAC is saying about my opponent… Shady? Yes. Legal. Yes. Reality though? Yes.
Just another way of mud slinging their opponent. Both sides do it. PACs are just another arm of the political party superstructure – loopholes that politicians have put in to help themselves while appearing to crack down on campaign finance reform.
I’m sorry but I think we would probably all be subject to doing much as all candidates do. But what really bothers me more than anything is the frenzie, and I do mean a raging fire with 50ft. flames of a frenzie, that our media is working us all up into. I even have to wonder about Fox News when all I see all day long is this government official after that one and rarely do we see any ordinary citizens being asked to express their views about their government officials and the job we need them doing for us. I am convinced we don’t really matter that much any more. Media and government and government and media are one. But then I must ad, I’m not a millionaire citizen either.
Isn’t it funny how the basic campaign strategy for the election of the political leader of an entire nation is essentially the same strategy as the kids used running for class president back when I was in middle school? They try to lower people’s view of the other candidate through insults, they promise the people what it appears they want (No matter how irrelevant it actually is to the position which they are running for), and they try to appear as a likable fellow. It’s actually really depressing. That’s why this “… and I approve this message” thing may prove to be quite good for the election. They have to take credit for their campaigns. Will it actually change anything about how they campaign? Ultimately, no. Does it do some good? Hard to say. I suppose it is possible though. I’m just waiting for the political leader who is concerned with anything other than their success. When that person comes, I’d vote for him. However, this is impossible. Power only attracts a certain type of mind.
Well, my guess is that a couple elections ago, a campaign said something that their nominee didn’t like, and it blew up in the candidates face. So the candidate wants to approve of all messages before they are aired, so nothing wrong happens.
Great info Mike!
I’m Busta, and I approve this compliment.
Even with the campaign reform laws, campaign ads have far too much mudslinging. Campaign ads are also too short to provide a sufficient number of persuasive arguments for me to change my mind. They have no effect on how I vote. I usually have my mind made up long before the election, and I have always, with only one exception, voted for a third party candidate. So as far as campaign ads go, I just find them irritating.
It’s curious that saying something like, “I approved this ad”, indicates nothing about the ad’s veracity, yet it is somehow perceived as being an admission of earnestness, if not honesty. From a psychological viewpoint, it was a stroke of genius to include it in the Campain Reform Act of 2002! Imagine: just saying those words makes you and the ad virtuous! Brilliant!
It’s typical bureaucratic rationale, which follows a long line of similar nonsense: Signing documents swearing that one is not nor has ever been a Communist (does anyone know whether any Communist has burst into flames after signing such?) ; consumers having to opt-out of receiving junk mail and phone calls rather than selecting to opt in (except, of course, for political ads, which are allowed to ignore the opt-outs ; having to prove you’re a citizen before you can deposit money in a bank earning no interest, per the act going by the clever acronym, PATRIOT (look it up, people!) ; police having to witness a crime before they can take action, when their mere presence in front of the “alleged” perpetrator may be enough to prevent them from doing it, again (or, at the very least, become more clever at repeating the crime).
Have you ever fully read virtual or real disclosure statements or terms of service that most online sites, including this one, require you to “sign”? Of course not! We all know that they are designed to protect the other party, not us, so what’s the point of reading them? And how many minors have signed such, which, technically speaking, is against the law, where no minor may enter into any contract or agreement (I’d love to see a case where an online criminal/hacker/whatever is sought by the Feds, only to find out that he/she is a minor; are the website owners responsible for that person being there?).
Likewise, merely verbalizing that one has approved an ad does not actually mean that the ad was viewed or heard by that individual, much less even discussed with him/her!
I find such statements to be patronizing, and, as with all the other ads and junk on TV and everywhere else, I pay no attention to them whatsoever. When our elected officials do more than put bandaids on problems they caused (i.e., civilians didn’t cause the Iraq Entrenchment nor are they responsible for Campaign reform or bank/mortgage failures, etc), then I’ll start paying attention to campaign ads (of course, they’ll have to be a lot more imaginative then they have been for the past 20 years or so; hmmm . . . despite my protestations, I guess I’ve seen more campaign ads than I care to admit!).
President Bush started “I approve this message” during his second campaign.
Hey Mike.
What different between Soviet Union and Germany 1932-1945?
Just name. Think about be for November 2008.
If John Mcain becomes the next president then a disaster greater than Iraq and Afghanistan is waiting to happen. Cold War may find a new window to creep into the system
Campagn adds really do not sway me except to reinforce my beliefs when listening to the opposition. I really don’t get “Undecided voters”. It’s as if all the differences between the parties are not relevent and that there is some hidden agenda that may sway the “undecided”. In the end, it would seem that if you believe:
1. That abortion is immoral
2. There should be no gun laws
3. That lowering taxes for all will help the economy
4. That personal investment of medicare funds in the stockmarket will help solve the Medicare problems
5. That we cannot afford a National Health Insurance program.
Then you should vote Republican
On the other hand, if you believe:
1. That a women has the right to choose.
2. In stricter gun controls
3. That, If taxes are lowered, It should be for low or middle income only.
4.That we should not risk Medicare funds in the stock market.
5.That everyone should have adequate health insurance.
Then you should vote Democrat.