Why Do Political Campaign Ads Always End with This Phrase?
In the world of political campaigning, there is a seemingly universal conclusion to ads: “I approve this message.” This phrase, although rarely true in an explicit sense, serves a crucial function in the world of campaign finance and public trust. Let's delve into why this practice is so prevalent and what it means for voters and candidates.
The Role of Campaign Finance Laws and Political Action Committees (PACs)
The inclusion of the phrase “I approve this message” is not just a formality; it has roots in U.S. campaign finance laws. Political ads often do not end with this phrase because they are paid for by the campaign itself. However, the requirement arises from the nature of Political Action Committees (PACs) and their legal intricacies.
In the United States, campaign advertisements made by third parties on behalf of a candidate can be misleading or even false. To mitigate the risk of such ads being circulated under a candidate's name, the language “I approve this message” ensures that candidates remain personally involved in the messaging. This clause provides an essential layer of transparency and accountability.
Protecting a Candidate's Integrity
By using the phrase “I approve this message,” a candidate can unequivocally state that the ad accurately represents their views and policies. Without this disclaimer, a candidate would be vulnerable to the potential spread of misinformation. An example could be a Republican group falsely claiming that Bernie Sanders supports Marxism, which the candidate would likely vehemently deny. Having a personal endorsement from the candidate prevents such scenarios, allowing the public to determine the authenticity of the message.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
Should a third party run an ad without the candidate's approval, it could lead to legal consequences. The ad may be deemed defamatory, fraudulent, or in violation of privacy laws. For instance, Bernie Sanders can legally challenge such a misleading ad and pursue legal action against the party responsible for spreading false information. This protection ensures that candidates are not unfairly targeted or misrepresented by unscrupulous third parties.
The Twist in Election Laws
While the intent behind “I approve this message” is to maintain a degree of honesty, the landscape of political campaign finance is twisted and complex. John McCain once promoted efforts to clean up political ads and reform PACs, but these reforms were overshadowed by the rise of independent third parties and their ability to make claims under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Independent PACs could make numerous malicious or dishonest claims about candidates without fear of legal repercussions. However, candidates themselves could be accused of making false or defamatory statements, which were strictly regulated. This loophole led to a workaround where candidates could endorse PACs without directly making the claims themselves. This tactic has become an established practice in modern political campaigning.
The Changing Nature of Presidential Debates and Campaigning
In addition to the ad language, political campaigns have seen a shift in the way debates and public speeches are structured. During debates, candidates often appear to be delivering prepared statements via teleprompters, rather than genuinely engaging in dialogue. This manner of addressing the audience has become a norm, with candidates reading from pre-written scripts instead of giving spontaneous responses.
Examples of this include:
Pre-arranged and scripted debates: The league of women voters no longer endorses or sponsors the presidential debates, and questions are given in advance. Candidates are provided with answers through teleprompters, a clear sign that debates are not live exchanges. Teleprompter Reading: On a recent presidential candidate's speech acceptance, the candidate was observed squinting to read from the teleprompter. This indicates that the speech had been pre-prepared and delivered robotically.Conclusion: The New World Order
The practices in political campaigning and debates have evolved significantly. Modern political campaigns and debates are part of a larger narrative of pre-arranged and scripted events, indicating a departure from genuine public discourse. These changes raise questions about the authenticity of political communication and public trust in the electoral process.
Understanding the reasoning behind phrases like “I approve this message” and the broader changes in political campaigning can help voters make more informed decisions. These practices are part of a system that aims to protect candidates and ensure a certain level of truth in political messaging, yet they also underscore the importance of critical thinking and diligent fact-checking in a complex political landscape.