Free Speech or Free Reign? New News on Issue Ads

Ask John Kerry about the importance of issue ads. His 2004 presidential campaign was thrown off course by a television ad paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that claimed Kerry had inflated his wartime achievements.

Such ads were outlawed in 2002 by a campaign finance bill sponsored by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI). (The Swift Boat Veterans initially slipped through a loophole in the bill but were later fined.) However, on December 21, 2006, a federal court found unconstitutional the portion of the law that limits ads.

A three-judge panel narrowly ruled that the McCain-Feingold law violates freedom of speech by preventing groups from feely expressing their political views.

At issue are the First Amendment and the question, "Does money equal speech?"

What does McCain-Feingold say?

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is otherwise known as the McCain-Feingold law, named after its authors John McCain and Russell Feingold. Technically, the law is an attempt to plug the loopholes in the Federal Election Campaign Act, loopholes that revealed themselves during the last 30 or so years of campaigns.

The McCain-Feingold law is long, complex, and took six years to generate, but one of its most controversial points is the ban on corporate, union, and special-interest sponsorship of televised campaign ads.

Under the law, groups wanting to broadcast advertisements that name federal candidates within 60 days before a general election, or 30 days before a primary, are required to follow strict rules on how they pay for them. The law requires that donors be disclosed and contributions be capped in order to prevent secretive groups from advocating for or against candidates in thinly disguised advertisements known as issue ads.

Does money equal speech?

Some say that campaign finance regulation amounts to censorship because there is a clear and direct connection between money and speech. They say that free speech on a large scale doesn’t happen without money, particularly in a campaign.

Others contend that there is a clear distinction between money and speech. They say that it’s abstract to link spending limits with speech limits. They do not believe that campaign finance regulations violate the constitution; to the contrary, they say, it protects the voice of the average citizen.

Those in favor of the ad ban say that the free speech argument must be taken in context. In an election, televised messages aren’t merely free speech, but also tools of the powerful to maintain their power.

But the court said that Wisconsin Right to Life, the group that brought forth the lawsuit, was airing its beliefs about an issue, less-so a candidate, and therefore had the right to its ads. Those in favor of the ban argue that the commercial was clearly meant to influence the 2004 election in which, not accidentally, Senator Feingold was running for reelection.

The case has already been considered by the Supreme Court, which sent it back to the lower court in January 2006. The Supreme Court said that the lower court mistakenly believed that no challenges were permitted to the advertising section of the law.

It’s possible and even likely that a new appeal on the matter will reach the Supreme Court.

Do TV ads really matter?

Politics and television are happily married. The love affair between them began over 40 years ago....

The year was 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon and Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy were vying for the highest office in the land. Both agreed to a debate that would be broadcast over national television - for the first time ever. Previously, debates were heard on the radio, and the power of the new visual media seemed to be understood by the Kennedy campaign alone.

Having just recovered from a leg injury, Nixon appeared sickly and pale, especially when compared with the young and tan JFK, who seemed relaxed and confident. By contrast, Nixon appeared sweaty and unappealing in a gray suit that blended with a gray background. Kennedy, wearing sharp navy blue, addressed the camera directly, so viewers felt as if he were speaking to them. However, Nixon’s gaze drifted, often towards his opponent.

Nixon was an excellent public speaker, and many critics declared him the winner of the debate. But JFK clearly won the contest of appearances and, perhaps because of this, the race.

Fast forward to today

In 40 years, the creation of a candidate’s television presence has become a science and an art. Focus groups are used to test everything from the candidate’s appearance to his or her tone. And campaign ads are created just like product ads - through market analysis and the latest technology.

The typical campaign ad is just 30 seconds long, but packed with visual information. In general, there are four types of campaign ads, and each type has its own visual style, along with its own purpose.

Ads do not give voters what they need to make an informed choice. They provide very little factual information and use visual and sound techniques to persuade. It’s best to watch all campaign ads with an analytical mind but seek out other resources - such as WomenMatter - to get information on the issues and parties.

But that is not to say that campaign ads are not valuable. As artifacts, they reveal the attitudes and values of mainstream culture during a particular time. Ads can also be used to measure a politician’s performance against his or her campaign promises.

But don’t be fooled by the makeup, lighting, editing, and sound of any campaign ad. They are made to convince, not to inform. To inform yourself, use WomenMatter. We discuss Life Issues without the spin.

What do you think?

Are the limits to ads constitutional? Do you think campaign ads are free speech? What about the money used to pay for them? Do you think people are greatly influenced by campaign and issue ads?

Tell other WomenMatter readers what you think on our blog!

Your input matters

Your representatives DO care what you think. Give your senators a piece of your mind! To find your reps, click here.

About WomenMatter

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue. To participate in our blog, click here.

WomenMatter is the place where we can take one issue at a time, match what we do about it every day of our lives to the facts of the bigger system that we all live in and recognize that every idea for making it better has tradeoffs.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We launch after school GirlsMatter Clubs in middle and high schools to grow the next generation of politically aware women through a full curriculum and startup kit on girlsmatter.com.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

* Past Campaign Financing Life Issue updates are always available on the Campaign Financing Archives page.

Article Posted on: 12/31/2006