Essay: Truth in Advertising - 1.26.10

This is an election year, and we’re all bound to be deluged with political advertising. Michigan Radio’s political analyst Jack Lessenberry has already seen one ad that was downright misleading.

Hear Audio Story   

The other day, I got a call from a woman who was a former student of mine. “Our Census form came in the mail, but it says we need to give money to the Republican Party. Can they make you do that?” No, I told her, that can’t be a real census form.

The U.S. Census bureau can’t and doesn’t ask you to give to the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, the Little Sisters of the Poor, or anything else, I told her. “Well, that’s what I thought,“ she said. “But it looks like a census form.“ I asked her to send it to me.

She did, and it really does look like an official census document. It says “Census Document Registered to,” and lists her husband’s name. It has a “Census Tracking Code” and, in all capitals, the words “2010 Congressional District Census.“

Her husband was directed to respond to this by February 11. When you study the document more closely, however, it is clear that it is a piece of clever, and misleading, political advertising.

Political advertising, in fact, intended to solicit a campaign donation. In very small type, under the word census, it says “Commissioned by the Republican Party.”

While some of the questions appear to be normal census-type questions - they ask her husband‘s age, for example - most of them are clearly politically charged and meant to evoke a certain response.

Some of them are based on premises that are clearly false, or at least debatable. “How much does it concern you that the Democrats have a total control of the federal government?”

I‘ll bet President Obama wished he did have total control right about now. “Do you think the Obama Administration is right in dramatically scaling back our nation’s military?” it adds.

At the end, this so-called “census form” asks the recipient to certify that the answers are his own, and then asks him to send the Republican party $500, or maybe $250 if he is feeling a little pinched.

My former student, a woman in her forties who cares for the elderly, was indignant. She isn’t very political and doesn’t mind getting political advertising from either party.

What bothers her is that she can easily envision some older person getting this in the mail and feeling they have to respond.

Feeling, in fact, that they have to send money. The papers are filled with stories of the elderly getting hoodwinked into losing their money all the time. I sent her letter to Rich Robinson, who runs the non-partisan, non-profit Michigan Campaign Finance Network. It is a group of people and organizations who are concerned about the influence of money in political life, regardless of where it comes from.

Robinson thought the letter was highly inappropriate, even outrageous. He was especially bothered that the word “census“ was capitalized, as if it were the official census.

But he saw no signs that this was illegal. And he said he expected to see a lot more of this kind of misleading advertising this year, especially now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there can be no limits on corporate campaign spending.

He’s worried about what means for our democracy. Maybe the rest of us should be worried too.

Comments

[Anonymous]

In what state did this occur? I ask because I gather that Mr. Lessenberry's former students are located in many states across the country.

Are Michiganians receiving this solicitation?

By the way, Jack Lessenberry is being legally inaccurate and conceptually misleading himself when he suggests that, "the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there can be no limits on corporate campaign spending." No; in Citizens v. FEC, the Supreme Court addressed the question of corporate, non-campaign independent expenditures. There were, and are, valid limits on donations to candidates' election campaigns. Individuals, and corporations alike are limited on the maximum amounts they may donate to candidates' campaigns. Those limits remain in force. What was constitutionally prohibited by Citizens' United was spending on independent advertisements and other forms of speech in which candidates are not involved in the creation of the advertisement or are otherwise coordinating the message.

[Kevin Shopshire]

The Republican National Committee sent them out, so I’m sure people in all 50 states got them. According to the AP, “U.S. Census Bureau spokesman Michael Cook says he has received several complaints over the past week from voters who believed the letter was misleading. Cook says the agency is still deciding what steps to take.”

Nice spin, but you are wrong. According toe the AP, “The ruling was that the government lacks a legitimate basis to restrict independent campaign expenditures by companies. The ruling went well beyond the circumstances in the case before the justices, a dispute over a documentary film attacking then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.”

“Companies, which had been barred since 1947 from using general-treasury dollars in support of or in opposition to a candidate, now can spend millions of dollars on their own campaign ads, potentially punishing or rewarding lawmakers for their votes on legislation.”

[Nathan F, Lansing]

The first comment is a typical paid blogger, getting paid by think tanks. Notice how it is Anonymous. I guess technically it is not campaign spending in a legal sense. Since it is not campaign spending, what if a corporation has some foreign members on the board of directors. Should they be able to have the corporation give money to ads that help elect candidates. What if these members are from a dreaded Terrorist group. If one corporation buys another one is this slavery?

[Nathan F, Lansing]

Do persons have to die at some point? Have a person (corporation) register to vote after they are 18 years old, see how for that goes. If persons can lose their rights by being an enemy combatant, can corporations be labeled the same? This is just ridiculous, just solve this problem and publicly finance elections.

[Anonymous]

The difference betwee you and me, Kevin, is that you read an AP dispatch.

Whereas, I read the full text of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion. Then, I read Justice Roberts' concurrence. Then, I read the separate opinions of Justices Scailia and Thomas. Then, I read Justece Stevens' dissent.

Original sources; the law. They are fascinating things. I recommend that you give it a try for yourself.

[Nathan F, Lansing]

I wish I had that kind of time. Something about working and community gets in the way for me. Maybe I will do it though, so I can keep things civil and possibly say I was wrong. I only got to read a summery I found.

[Kevin Shopshire]

The difference between you and me, anonymous, is I’m willing to put my name to what I write instead of hiding behind an anonymous attack like you.

The difference between you and me, anonymous, is I read a natural to conservative source and put it up instead of putting my own spin on something.

I noticed you declined to try and debunk anything written, and all you did was attack me and the source. That really says it all.

[Anonymous]

Hey, Kevin. Here's your Two-Part morning beat-down, over easy, with a side of toast:

A quote from Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion:

" Before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibited—and still does prohibit—corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make direct contributions to candidates or independent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate, through any form of media, in connection with certain qualified federal elections."

What the court addressed was only the prohibition on "electioneering" that is done entirely separately from candidates. Justice Kennedy gave examples. Again, quoting his decision:

"The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship."

So there, Kevin. Just exactly what I had originally stated, and which you had doubted. Although, in truth, the AP quote that you had cited didn't really disagree with me; the AP story correctly mentioned "independent" expenditures. I gather that the AP writer understood the technical parameters of the ruling, but you simply did not. Which does not speak well of anyone, guru or not, involved in public communications or the media.

[Kevin Shopshire]

“A Two-Part morning beat-down? What the hell are you talking about? Hey, anonymous, you’re still full of it, and you’re still spinning. Like I said, the government lacks a legitimate basis to restrict independent campaign expenditures by companies. Everything about Mr. Lessenberry’s post is correct, especially the part about the deceptive mailing by the GOP, which was what the post was about.

[Nathan F, Lansing]

Do you even watch tv during election year? All adds are bashing other candidates. The ruling said that the movie portraying Hillery Clinton in a negative respect was okay. That was what the case started as before they came back and argued it in a more broad topic. This ruling made the movie Okay

1(a) of the headnote:
Citizen United’s narrower arguments—that Hillary is not an “electioneering communication” covered by §441b because it is not“publicly distributed”

So, this ruling made this okay, and your little NRA and Sierra Club examples are illegal but if you twist it a little the message would be fine in the eyes of the court.