Absence of political advertising regulations, unacceptable
November 12, 2016
For the last year and a half, the American people have been bogged down with advertisements, one after the other, with their sole purpose being to either promote one certain politician or attack an opposing one. With many ads being labeled as lies or not truthful in some way, one would think that there should be some type of guideline or restrictions to follow when a political advertisement is being made.
The actual regulations that political advertisements must follow is actually quite sweeping in scope and in-depth. There are numerous articles for making sure that all people who contributed towards the making of the advertisement are always cited in some way (whether it be a print ad, television and everything in between) and various other procedures to let one know when a disclaimer is necessary for the ad.
They assert that back-loading – airing ads close to the election – was actually more effective than front-loading – airing ads early in the campaign – if the goal was to influence voters on Election Day.
— John Sides
But when it comes to the things most people would think that regulation is necessary for – primarily when it comes to making false claims or the budget allowed – the current laws are quite lenient if they exist at all. The official FEC website that contains all of the regulations for political advertising does not have any laws that specifically mention anything of false claims, meaning that a politician can make any statement they wish to in an advertisement and there would be no defined legal punishment for doing so.
The result of this means that anyone could make a political advertisement, say anything that they may want to and there would be no repercussions at the legal level. The only thing that cannot be put on a political ad are direct threats – and then the list stops existing. The government has regulation upon regulation to clear up any confusion on how to cite sponsors in an advertisement, but nothing about false and libelous claims.
That would be of no issue in the long run if a lot of advertisements were not made to sway the undecided vote. A report from The Monkey Cage by John Sides from George Washington and Lynn Vavreck from the UCLA found some very interesting things based on the 2012 election. “They assert that back-loading – airing ads close to the election – was actually more effective than front-loading – airing ads early in the campaign – if the goal was to influence voters on Election Day.”
What the report seems to suggest is the idea that political advertisements work at their best before the election and primarily on undecided voters. The implications of this are enormous. Voters could very easily vote for a person they otherwise would not have voted for because they saw a political ad about them. Even worse, they could elect an official into office based on lies from these advertisements and there would be no consequence to those who made the ad in the first place.
However, it is not like there are not any good reasons for such little restrictions. It is in complete alignment with the First Amendment that promises all Americans the freedom of speech. People on social media and the Internet as a whole do a very good job of spreading any misinformation. You can not hold a politician responsible for what their followers do, after all.
But that is just the issue: the people spread the lies. They spread them because that is what they see on their TVs, on their phones and because it is what they hear around them. The majority of people in America do not care about whether or not what they hear about a politician is true – only that they heard that something awful about them.
These advertisements do their job just fine, but that is exactly the issue. If political ads can say nearly anything they please and the people that make them can get away with it, then it is clear to see that the policies are in need of reform.
Travis Jacosbon • Nov 23, 2016 at 10:21 am
This article is brilliantly worded and an interesting thought provoker. Especially with this years election there has been so much misinformation and blatant lying it’s a true shame. But your article explains it perfectly. Wonderful job.
Cates Eliasen • Nov 22, 2016 at 10:24 pm
Regulations on political ads are an interesting topic because on one hand, you face purposeful misinformation of the masses, while on the other you risked biased censorship through regulation. However, if your suggested regulation laws are strictly aimed at libel and false claims, then it would most definitely fall more under the category of asserting the truth, rather than risking it like some regulations do. Your links were very applicable to the story and I really enjoyed the way you adhered completely to your opinion throughout the whole article, especially since your opinion was very strong and boldly phrased. As a reader, being able to see that you have a firm stance on the topic makes it much more interesting to read as I’m able to see the passion and reasoning behind your contentions. It’s an interesting article and certainly gives the reader something to think about!
John Reaver • Nov 13, 2016 at 10:50 pm
There are already defamation laws on the books which can easily be applied to lies made by one candidate about the other. All someone need to prove to win a federal defamation case is that the information spread by someone is false, that the lie caused material harm, and that the offending party acted with malice or negligence. These rules aren’t explicitly posted by the FEC, because defamation law is an established part of federal and state civil law.