Third party ads.

[Intense]

Right now a third party can run an ad and say what they want; which is sorta cool that's what freedom of speech is all about. But, it does seem to me that a political ad oughta be cleared by a candidate or party so that some accountability can be ascribed. I don't think any ad should air unless somebody takes responsibility for it.

I don't think they have any control, by law. It is what it is, granted the cost of running them does stimulate the advertising economy, even if what they are buying is fertilizer. Most of us hate stupid adds, regardless of where they come from.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Right now a third party can run an ad and say what they want; which is sorta cool that's what freedom of speech is all about. But, it does seem to me that a political ad oughta be cleared by a candidate or party so that some accountability can be ascribed. I don't think any ad should air unless somebody takes responsibility for it.

I don't think they have any control, by law. It is what it is, granted the cost of running them does stimulate the advertising economy, even if what they are buying is fertilizer. Most of us hate stupid adds, regardless of where they come from.

Romney denounced the ad that Obama found objectionable and it never ran. Obama refuses to denounce the ad that is a straight up lie. And we have at least one person in this thread claiming the Republicans are to blame.

 

[Intense]

If you are doing it on my behalf, then I should assume some accountability for it. If I refuse, then you don't get to air it unless somebody else will approve it.

You don't think that infringes on free speech?

Maybe I just think your boss is a dick and that other people need to know.

Yes, it does infringe on free speech. I'm not big on infringing free speech, but there are exceptions, and in politics I don't like some 3rd party putting ads on the air with impunity. At least we can specify which ads have been claimed or unclaimed by somebody who has something to lose if the ad is shall we say somewhat controversial.

The people that run the add, are accountable. It's their reputation on the line.

 

[Intense]

There is no power behind those ads. The candidate merely has to denounce the ad and we're done with it. If they DON'T denounce it --- then it is tacitly acceptable to the candidate.

That's all --- real simple.. Romney denounces one -- the W.H. denies responsibility for one but doesn't denounce it. Got it? Good..

Same power as in a major Newspaper editorial.. Adopt it -- Modify it -- or denounce it...
Just because someone endorses you or attempts to campaign on your behalf -- you don't lose control of your campaign..

When the Communist Party of the USA endorses Obama -- do we need to assume it came from his campaign? And they certainly don't NEED PERMISSION to do such a thing..

Denouncing an ad after it's run is like locking the barn door after the horses have left. The damage has been done; if the ad is offensive or unfair enough that no political entity will assume responsibility for it, then maybe it shouldn't see the light of day. Failing that, we can at least specify upfront that the ad has no support from anybody. If enough unsupported ads are run for a candidate or party, it can become a political liability, and maybe we'd see a little less of them.

But you really didn't answer the question of why these ads are different from unwanted endorsements (or wanted endorsements) or unfavorable or unsavory editorials in a large newspaper or media outlet.. Should be banish Talking Heads for the election cycle?

Nope. The truth is what it is. Commentators stand or fall on their own merit. Who is anyone to censor a message, before I hear it? Don't I have a right to decide for myself who and what I support?

 

[Intense]

Liberty is what it is, for better and for sometimes, worse.