Accountability in advertising
October 30, 2005 1:23 PM Subscribe
Truth in (political) advertising...
I don't live in New Jersey, but I live in an area where television, radio and print media show much of New Jersey's political campaign advertising.
One of the state's gubernatorial candidates is promising to lower state property taxes by a specific amount within a specific time frame, if elected. These are both clearly defined and emphasized numbers within the advertisement, framed within a specific, contract-like arrangement.
What remediation is available to voting citizens, if a politician does not follow through on advertised claims?
Legally, are FTC and FCC statutes that apply to truth-in-advertising applicable to political campaign promises made through advertising in television, print and radio media?
If yes, is it a question of enforceability?
If not, what specific exemptions are made for politicians, when were those exemptions put into place, and why?
I don't live in New Jersey, but I live in an area where television, radio and print media show much of New Jersey's political campaign advertising.
One of the state's gubernatorial candidates is promising to lower state property taxes by a specific amount within a specific time frame, if elected. These are both clearly defined and emphasized numbers within the advertisement, framed within a specific, contract-like arrangement.
What remediation is available to voting citizens, if a politician does not follow through on advertised claims?
Legally, are FTC and FCC statutes that apply to truth-in-advertising applicable to political campaign promises made through advertising in television, print and radio media?
If yes, is it a question of enforceability?
If not, what specific exemptions are made for politicians, when were those exemptions put into place, and why?
Can you point to any transcripts? Unless NJ has an odd policymaking process, that would require the legislature too.
In any case, I think that even if he did say that, a reasonable person would view that only as a statement of intent, or a goal that he is claiming he will work toward, not as a sure and certain statement of what will come to pass if he is elected. Likewise, a reasonable person would acknowledge that any such statement carries with it an implicit "...if nothing substantive changes between now and the time the policy would come into force."
What remediation is available to voting citizens, if a politician does not follow through on advertised claims?
You can vote for someone else next time, and contribute or work towards the offending person's electoral defeat.
Assuming sort of boring-average political processes, you can pressure the legislature to remove the person from office through impeachment or the like.
If you live in a state with the recall, you can work to recall the offending person.
You can pressure the offending person to resign.
If not, what specific exemptions are made for politicians, when were those exemptions put into place, and why?
I suspect that will miss the point. Any higher protection will not be for "politicians," but for political expression from any side. It's not words that come out of politicans' mouths that are most strongly protected by the first amendment, it's political speech generally.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:02 PM on October 30, 2005
In any case, I think that even if he did say that, a reasonable person would view that only as a statement of intent, or a goal that he is claiming he will work toward, not as a sure and certain statement of what will come to pass if he is elected. Likewise, a reasonable person would acknowledge that any such statement carries with it an implicit "...if nothing substantive changes between now and the time the policy would come into force."
What remediation is available to voting citizens, if a politician does not follow through on advertised claims?
You can vote for someone else next time, and contribute or work towards the offending person's electoral defeat.
Assuming sort of boring-average political processes, you can pressure the legislature to remove the person from office through impeachment or the like.
If you live in a state with the recall, you can work to recall the offending person.
You can pressure the offending person to resign.
If not, what specific exemptions are made for politicians, when were those exemptions put into place, and why?
I suspect that will miss the point. Any higher protection will not be for "politicians," but for political expression from any side. It's not words that come out of politicans' mouths that are most strongly protected by the first amendment, it's political speech generally.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:02 PM on October 30, 2005
In countries with good governance and a non-lapdog press, the enforcement is through the press: reporters will write down what Candidate X says, and then if Governor X fails to follow through, they will write nasty stories about how Governor X reneged on his promise.
In the U.S., sorry, there's no enforcement possible.
posted by jellicle at 3:42 PM on October 30, 2005
In the U.S., sorry, there's no enforcement possible.
posted by jellicle at 3:42 PM on October 30, 2005
It's really only the FTC that handles truth-in-advertising, and since it's the Federal Trade Commision, they aren't concerned with political ads that involved no Trade.
posted by smackfu at 6:41 AM on October 31, 2005
posted by smackfu at 6:41 AM on October 31, 2005
If you live in a state with the recall, you can work to recall the offending person.
Even recalls (which are extremely uncommon at the state level) can have restrictions. For example, in Washington State, recalls must be based on the following: an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, or has violated the oath of office, or has been guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall.
I'm absolutely certain (without even looking) that those "acts specified in the Constitution" do not include breaking a campaign promise.
posted by WestCoaster at 10:34 AM on October 31, 2005
Even recalls (which are extremely uncommon at the state level) can have restrictions. For example, in Washington State, recalls must be based on the following: an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, or has violated the oath of office, or has been guilty of any two or more of the acts specified in the Constitution as grounds for recall.
I'm absolutely certain (without even looking) that those "acts specified in the Constitution" do not include breaking a campaign promise.
posted by WestCoaster at 10:34 AM on October 31, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by electric_counterpoint at 1:50 PM on October 30, 2005