The Candidates are Coming [GOP]

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Santorum must be saving the Obama-is-the-Anti-Christ meme for the general election?

Possibly so, even though he won't be in it. On the other hand, this would counterbalance the old "Obama *is* the Messiah" website from 2007.

I wonder if that site still exists? Well, what do you know? It does still exist.

[sindatur]

Personally, I'm in favor of banning all Campaign ads attacking the opponent. Campaign ads, IMHO, should be an ad about you, and why you are right for the job, not, why the other guy is wrong. Especially since half the time, a Politician's Campaign that levies accusations against their opponent, you'll find they are at least as guilty of what they are accusing their opponent of. (IE: Newt Gingrich on his witchhunt for Pres Clinton for infidelity, while stepping out on his wife at least as much, and she was sick, wasn't she?)

[Avatar]

100% agree. Political advertising like that (smearing your opponent) is illegal here.)

--A

[[Syl]]

Could never happen. It would be kicked out at the lowest court for 1st Amendment problems. I think the thing is for candidates to make a gentleman's agreement about it, but even before totally not coordinated super PACs, it doesn't last long.

[Cybrweez]

No, I think the real problem is what is negative? If you disagree w/your opponents views, and specifically what he voted for/against, what's the problem pointing it out in ads? Some would construe that as attacking him, but I don't have a problem w/that. The problem is stretching the facts, but who would ever determine such a thing?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I think it is perfectly possible--it would even be desirable--to run a completely positive campaign without mentioning your opponent at all in your ads.

"My name is x, my voting record is such-and-such" or "I will vote for this bill" or "I will vote against that bill" and "my qualifications are a, b, and c. I would appreciate your vote--together we can do whatever it is you want done from a politician".

You tell potential voters who you are and what you stand for (or against); there is no need to mention your opponents at all.

I might actually vote for someone running a completley clean and positive campaign like that, even if I didn't like their platform--at least they have the integrity to run an honest and clean campaign.

[sindatur]

No, I think the real problem is what is negative? If you disagree w/your opponents views, and specifically what he voted for/against, what's the problem pointing it out in ads? Some would construe that as attacking him, but I don't have a problem w/that. The problem is stretching the facts, but who would ever determine such a thing?

Disagreeing with your Opponents views is entirely different then what is contained in that video, and is different than slapping an opponent with accusations of Infedelity, corruption, the wrong Religion, tax fraud...

But, as Hashi says, it's very possible to use your commercials to sell yourself, rather than to run others down.

[Holsety]

Santorum must be saving the Obama-is-the-Anti-Christ meme for the general election?

Possibly so, even though he won't be in it. On the other hand, this would counterbalance the old "Obama *is* the Messiah" website from 2007.

I wonder if that site still exists? Well, what do you know? It does still exist.

Funny that the author of that site is excited over Obama being depicted like Shiva the Destroyer, not a deity I would normally consider very messianic. A comparison to Vishnu/Krishna would probably be more in line...

As far as negative campaigns go, I do agree that they do tend towards smearing in the US, but I think that negativity about the other candidate is a valid way to get yourself elected if it shows that person to be unsuited for running the country or getting positive results that the voters want.

[Avatar]

Problem is as soon as one guy does it, everybody else thinks they're going to lose out.

We don't allow competitive advertising either. Not allowed to mention your competitor (any competitor) in ads.

--A

[Prebe]

Could never happen. It would be kicked out at the lowest court for 1st Amendment problems.

Can you call 1st Ammendment for making an add saying: "Eat at Burger King because McDonals hamburgers taste like shit"?

[sindatur]

Could never happen. It would be kicked out at the lowest court for 1st Amendment problems.

Can you call 1st Ammendment for making an add saying: "Eat at Burger King because McDonals hamburgers taste like shit"?

I Feel sorry for the jury who has to sample both the McDonald's Burger and the shit to determine it is indeed slander

[wayfriend]

... but it is legal for anyone to advertise that their product is the best, or better than another product, regardless of whether it is. On the basis that it is subjective, I guess.

[Ananda]

Could never happen. It would be kicked out at the lowest court for 1st Amendment problems.

Can you call 1st Ammendment for making an add saying: "Eat at Burger King because McDonals hamburgers taste like shit"?

I Feel sorry for the jury who has to sample both the McDonald's Burger and the shit to determine it is indeed slander

[Hashi Lebwohl]

There are probably laws that prevent Burger King from putting up such an ad that speaks so negatively of a competitor; however, as a private citizen I can place an ad in the newspaper saying it because it is my opinion.

[Rawedge Rim]

Could never happen. It would be kicked out at the lowest court for 1st Amendment problems.

Can you call 1st Ammendment for making an add saying: "Eat at Burger King because McDonals hamburgers taste like shit"?

Actually you could, but the "unwritten rule" among the burger people is that you don't use that kind of advertising because it would hurt the whole business, not just the people you want to get hurt.

[Prebe]

Thanks RR. I was just wondering.

But I am getting four different answers here:

1: Negative advertisemnet is legal, but you are subject to a slander suit (gotta get myself one. Preferably green with two rows of buttons)

2: Negative advertisement is legal. Period.

3: There are graduated laws agains negative advertisement

4: There are no laws, the reason we don't see such adds is unwritten rules

As bonus information, I can reveal that according to Danish marketing laws you can't explicitly mention another brand in a negative context. You can say "the other leading brands suck" etc. though.

What I'm trying to figure out here is whether different standards (legal or unwritten) apply to political parties and to corperations. I suspect that it may be the case.

And Sindatur: You da funny guy!!! Heh!

[I'm Murrin]

False statements are subject to libel law, other stuff is fair game.

[Vraith]

4: There are no laws, the reason we don't see such adds is unwritten rules

It's mostly that one [and also a smattering of evidence related to "it's all good publicity as long as they get your name right"...as far as other detergent makers are concerned, even talking dirty about Tide might help their sales]
Combined with what Murrin said. [AFAIK, to quote someone, "Truth is an absolute defense" in all libel/slander...no matter how negative, if it's true there's nothing that forbids.]
Funny though...you have to abide by very strict rules when showing/naming a competitor's stuff...not cuz of slander/libel, because of copyright/trademark.

Different standards do apply for politics and other "public figures," in the U.S. They can sue, but they not only have to show the falseness of the statement, but knowledge of the falseness/malice. It's very hard to win.

[Prebe]

Different standards do apply for politics and other "public figures," in the U.S. They can sue, but they not only have to show the falseness of the statement, but knowledge of the falseness/malice. It's very hard to win.

So, for all practical purposes, commercial cooperations are held to a higher moral standard than politicians? That would be capitalism at its ugliest indeed.

[Vraith]

Different standards do apply for politics and other "public figures," in the U.S. They can sue, but they not only have to show the falseness of the statement, but knowledge of the falseness/malice. It's very hard to win.

So, for all practical purposes, commercial cooperations are held to a higher moral standard than politicians? That would be capitalism at its ugliest indeed.

Heh...never really pondered it from that angle. That's funny, not in a good way. Instant reaction...yea, I guess so, since there is the additional requirement for legal judgement. Though I'd make a different conclusion: if the corps are held to a higher standard, that indicts the politicians more than the corps/capitalism.
But the real practical effect is that all of them try as hard as possible to make it sound to the audience/consumer like they are making factual, demonstrable claims without ever actually making any claim that is falsifiable.