Skip Navigation - Search the MetOnline

Metonline Logo
Powered by Google

Volume 27, Issue 13, November 04, 2004

Opinion

You are being lied to

mugHeather Wahle
Columnist

The truth in advertising law does not apply to political advertising. Instead, political candidates are entitled, by law, to lie to you as much as they deem necessary.

Consumers are protected from companies advertising products in a misleading manner. The Federal Trade Commission regularly enforces the truth in advertising law. It is illegal to claim a product has certain attributes it doesn’t really have. A ballerina doll manufacturer was taken to court after its television commercial portrayed the doll supporting itself independently, when in reality it needed the assistance of the child playing with the toy. Miss Cleo was sued when she claimed to give free psychic readings over the phone and really charged the customers. The FTC ruled Miss Cleo’s company pay $5 million to the government and $500 million to her callers.

Political candidates are not held to the same standards as companies. Instead, they are protected by the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of speech. The Federal Communications Act even enforces a law that says people running for public office may run their advertisements uncensored. Broadcasters are required by law to air commercials even if they feel the material is offensive or misleading. Stations can refuse to run any ads from political groups other than candidates.

If a candidate wants to air an advertisement and it is false, the broadcaster cannot refuse—it is against the law. We have all been subjected to millions of dollars worth of political advertising that has distorted the facts. The purpose of many advertisements is not to inform the public on superior policy changes. Instead, the purpose is to scare the American voting population into casting a ballot for a particular political candidate.

The Bush administration has sponsored an ad referred to as wolves that has run repeatedly on national television networks. The commercial uses blurry shots of a forest and a pack of wolves to represent terrorists. The ad shows the wolves appearing to be hungry and on the verge of an attack. Near the end a female announcer claims that democratic opponent John Kerry’s voting is weak and “weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm.”

The ad claims Kerry voted for defense cuts after the first attack on the World Trade Center. What comes to mind when hearing the first attack on America is the 9/11 attacks. Yet, what is being referred to is an incident that occurred in 1993. A bomb was planted in a truck in an underground parking lot of the World Trade Center over a decade ago.

It is true that Kerry voted to cut intelligence funding, but this occurred in 1994. Although total intelligence funding is classified material, the Kerry supported intelligence funding decrease was approximately 3.7 percent. The commercial calls this a slash in funding and says it would weaken our defense.

The commercial also claims that the cut in funding Kerry supported was for $6 billion, which is not true. Kerry did support a bill that would have cut the spending by $1 billion.

The commercial claims voting for spending cuts are supported by “liberals in congress.” That is in contradiction to the many Republican votes that were cast in favor of the intelligence cut in question. In fact, the current CIA director Porter Goss voted for many decreases in spending, including the one mentioned in the ad.

Goss actually co-sponsored a bill in 1995 that would have cut the intelligence funding by 20 percent over five years. Goss is a Republican and was appointed by Bush.

The wolves commercial is shocking and intimidating. This ad is just one of the many blatantly false commercials to be seen regarding election day. Campaigns are counting on undecided voters to see their advertisements and take them for fact. Not many viewers will take the time to research the claims.