...And I approve of the following message...

May 4, 2004 7:29 PM

I'm wondering about the laws related to political TV ads. I thought candidates had to have some sort of video taped approval message at the end of them. Hence the "My name is Kang, and I approve of this message." I've been seeing at the end of ads. Now, I'm noticing this same speech at the begriming of the ads, which makes me wonder if it was mandated to be at the end. I tend to zone out lots of TV, so if an ad has the approval message at the beginning, I have to watch for fine print at the end. Is this a changing trend?
posted by jeribus to law & government (8 comments total)

I've read/heard somewhere that they put that phrase at the beginning for negative ads, and at the end for positive. I'll try to dig up a link (it may have been Hardball)
posted by amberglow at 7:52 PM on May 4, 2004

and that the law is just that the phrase has to appear sometime during the ad.
posted by amberglow at 7:52 PM on May 4, 2004

In case no one else figured it out, this Ax is about the new Campaign finance laws in the US.

Not sure of the laws, but I remember the first time I heard the line was in one of Howard Dean's first commercials. He started the commercial by saying something like "I'm Governor Howard Dean. I'm running for president, and I approve this message, because we need to take our country back..."

Other Democratic Primary canidates would try to slip it in anywhere in the ad, sometimes beginning or end, since the phrase is so unnatural. Dennis Kucinich even had an ad where he said "Do I approve this message? You bet!"

Heard somewhere that a picture of the canidate must also be present when that statement is said.
posted by ALongDecember at 7:53 PM on May 4, 2004

I'm pretty sure the whole thing is brand new, a feature of McCain-Feingold.

Here's the FEC page on it. It has all the details. Scroll down to "Radio and Television Communications Authorized by the Candidate". It doesn't demand where in the commercial the audio disclaimer has to be. It does say the written disclaimer has to be at the end.
posted by smackfu at 7:57 PM on May 4, 2004

here's a transcript: about halfway down or so:
MATTHEWS:  It‘s interesting that your ad, when do you a positive ad, that dreamy first one, which was very nice, you have the president say, I support this ad up front.  But when you do a dastardly attack on the opponent—I‘m sorry—you do it the other way, rather. You have Bush at the end of the nice one, because he‘s part of that nice feeling at the end.  But when you want to stick the dagger in, you have him say it up front so you don‘t quite see him at the end.  Is that the strategy?
ESKEW:  Well, not much of a dagger there. 
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS:  Isn‘t it
(CROSSTALK
MATTHEWS:  Put him at the front of negatives and at the end of positives? 
ESKEW:  No.
MATTHEWS:  Well, you just did.
ESKEW:  I‘m not sure that‘s consistent.  We may have done that this time.
MATTHEWS:  Well, I‘ll be watching to see if it is. 
(CROSSTALK)
ESKEW:  I don‘t know what that would really portend.  I think it suggests the president is following the letter of the law in getting his
(CROSSTALK)  
MATTHEWS:  Except the letter he is using the letter to go one way for the positive and one way for the negative. 
posted by amberglow at 8:00 PM on May 4, 2004

This tactic has been used in radio ads by car dealers, who are required by law to broadcast fine print of the lease agreements and cash-back deals that they mention in the ad.

(In case the presidential candidate/used car salesman analogy wasn't evident enough.)
posted by PrinceValium at 8:36 PM on May 4, 2004

jeribus, we're not all in the US - apologies if that sounds snarkier but context appreciated.
posted by dmt at 6:03 PM on May 5, 2004

dmt, no actually, it wasn't snarky at all.

in fact, i'd love to see posts about campaign laws in other countries in fact. i should have thought about it when i posted the question. i think it'd be interesting enough to warrant another post, but i'm gonna cork it for the moment.

so...

i guess my mefi name is jeribus, and i don't fully support this question.

err. maybe i should have put that in the front, so i didn't end on a negative note.
posted by jeribus at 11:56 PM on May 5, 2004