The government can't regulate truth, especially in politics.
No one said they could! But the government can set the rules on how money that is injected into politics specifically to buy media advertising space doesn't lead to "false advertising". The "false advertising" is those aspects of a political ad that are not true.
Oh, come on. He can do it in a debate! Or call a news conference. Or put it on his website. Or all of these things.
Tackling each of the above point-by-point...
Debates. As we've seen throughout these 19 GOP debates (and counting), not all of the candidates get a fair share of the minutes. Santorum and Ron Paul are still in this GOP race, but you and I both know they have not received anywhere near the amount of talk-time as Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrinch. Of course, your counter-argument will be "well, they're not the front runners" or "they're not the candidates the people are interested in". Really? Seems to me people voted for Santorum and Paul voted during the Iowa, NH, and SC caucuses, and will likely do so again. They may not be receiving as many votes as Romney or Gingrinch, but they've received the appropriate amount of votes to qualify as legitimate GOP candidates. Thus, they share the stage with the two front runners. And yet, they don't receive nearly the amount of face time as the other two.
News Conference. We both know that only works provided the candidates say or do something the media considers to be "news worthy". Case and point: How many press conferences did Herman Cain conduct until he was "forced" to drop out of the race? And under what circumstances did he hold said news conferences? If you're being honest about it, you'll know that no news outlet will cover a candidate's press conference unless he has something of importance to say. And usually that "something important" can be attributed to some accusation that's been made against him, i.e., Herman Cain's womanizing and subsequent fall from grace. But you are correct in one sense - if the candidate is fortunate enough to be in a position where he/she can get before the news cameras for whatever reason while on the campaign trail, he/she should take every opportunity to address those issues and set the record straight. To be clear, Herman Cain had more face time in front of the cameras outside the debate arenas than any of the other candidate. He had plenty of opportunities to "set the record straight". Not :spin: it, not lie to weasle his way out of it. Just set the record straight. So, how'd that work out for him? Did he tell the truth? Did he set the record straight?
Websites. You'd better be able to update your site routinely. Otherwise, it does you no good to have a site filled with inaccuracies. Put simply: A political website is only as effective as the content it contains at any given time. So, if I'm looking for relevent information about you, your policies, your achievements, your plans for the future, your position on issues I care about, your website had better address these such matters. If not, it's really not going to do the candidate any good.
Other things. You mean like direct-mail? Cost money to run an effective direct-mail campaign. Just ask
the Architect, Karl Rove himself. He'll tell you. That's how he got started in the business of political compaigning. (And yes! It IS a business for him. Ever heard of the "Rove + Company"?)
Tough!
It's not the candidate's speech or money! Since when do candidates have to have total control over what is said about them!
Again, you miss the point. The line of communications are purposely "blurred" between the candidate and the PAC/SuperPAC that supports him. These entities ARE an extension of the candidate but in an indirect way. The idea behind PACs was to keep the politician safe from being unduly influenced by money that fed into his political advertising campaign. If money flowed into this "advertising company" - because all a PAC really does is advertise on behalf of the candidate - and the "PAC" isn't required to inform the candidate who made the contribution or how they intend to use the funds in an ad campaign, the PAC could say whatever it wanted about the opposing candidate and claim automony while the candidate him/herself gets to claim "plausable deniability". The two "don't talk to each other," the "PAC" isn't required to publish who the donors are" except under specific guidelines (See FEC rules). The public is kept in the dark until they start digging into matters for themselves. And as I've already pointed out, by the time most people come around to realizing they've been dupped, it's usually too late.
Total control should be necessary. After all, it is the candidate's career in politics that's on the line. I would think they'd want to be able to "approve or disapprove of this message". The funny thing here is folks talk about honesty and integrity concerning their candidates, yet we allow this to happen?
Unbelievable!! :doh
Not really. Not that it matters.
So, just so everyone understands this, it's okay for Newt Gingrinch to complain about the negative attack ads Romney's "ad campaign" puts out, but it's not okay if he turns around and receive a $10 million dollar check from a wealthy Los Vegas contributor so that Newt could do what? Run similar negative ads against his primary opponent, Mitt Romney? As was the case with Herman Cain, let's see if Newt's ads "sets his record straight". You Republican voters should be paying attention to that, not whether or not Newt strikes back!!
No.
You may not consider how "misinformation" affects the public. That is not something the government may consider when deciding to regulate speech. The people will decide. The government may not decide it knows better. It's your kind of patronizing thinking that was EXACTLY why the First Amendment was adopted.
Why not? I'm part of the greater society, part of the voting public. Why shouldn't I argue against how my vote might be manipulated because I may not get to hear what the other candidate has to say because the more well financied candidate via his PAC/SuperPAC connections are drowning out their opponent? Does not the public deserve to hear both sides?
You spoke of the alternate forms of communication the candidates could use. I've outline how those communications methods may not be as effective if the opposing candidate isn't well financed. You can't claim "wealth" helps the candidate on the one hand but turn a blind eye to how the lack of same hurts both the opposing candidate's chances of winning an election through various forms of media while it also prevents the public from learning more about the opposing candidate. It's one thing if these candidates RAISED advertising dollars on their own; it's quite another when the wealthiest contributor is able to do it for them. But I digress...
Until this post, I have NOT stated what I believe the government should do concerning misleading ads from PACs during campaigns. I HAVE said something should be done to ensure false and misleading ads don't overwhelme a campaign.
