The Right To Lie

I've recently received a slew of emails in response to one of the statements I've made while doing political commentary on Sirius/XM radio P.O.T.U.S. channel (channel 110/130)

Here's one of the emails:

Sir,
This week on POTUS I heard you make a comment in passing that intrigued me. You said some thing like..
"Congress has already said that forcing candidates too tell the truth is an infringement on their right too free speech."

Please take a moment too let me know too what you were referring. I would like very much to know more.

This was my response to that email:

Here's the deal on the Truth in Advertising laws that my industry is subject to:

When my company creates a campaign for a corporate client, the stuff that we say in that campaign has to be true. If it's not, both my company and my client's company can be sued.

A real world example of this happened in 2004. KFC tried to claim that fried chicken could be part of an effective diet program. The Federal Trade Commission fined the company, required it to pull the commercials AND required KFC to submit all advertising for FTC review for the next 5 years.

Now that's a pretty stiff penalty.

But these laws DO NOT apply to politicians.

Our government has consistently upheld the notion that political ads are a form of "political speech" which fall under the protection of the First Amendment.

Lawyers and politicos will tell you that this is important because voters have the right to uncensored information so that they can better decide for whom to cast their vote.

This "right to lie" that politicians seem to enjoy is further complicated by the Federal Communications Act which dictates that the media MUST run these spots uncensored -- even if they believe the ads to be false or offensive. And not only must TV, Radio and Print outlets run the political ads -- they are obligated by law to sell the air time or ad space to the politicians at the lowest advertising rate.

Here's another real world example of this

In 1972 there was a guy named J.B. Stoner from Georgia ran for US Senate. He called himself a "white racist" and he created an ad that said this: "The main reason why niggers want integration is because niggers want our white women."

Obviously this is type of statement is both false and offensive -- in every sense of the words -- but because of the Federal Communications Act, the FCC forced stations in Atlanta - despite their complaints - to accept and run the ad. The reason, of course, is the "freedom of speech protections"

So the big question is why hasn't congress - a body made up of politicians who continue to get elected in part because they can lie in their political ads - why haven't these guys addressed the issue of truth in political advertising?

hmm...

I hope that is helpful in understanding where I'm coming from on this.

Thanks everyone for listening and for taking the time to write me with your questions and comments.

Negative Impact

There were a number of recent media surveys released this week that reveal 2 very important statistics

1. 20% more money has been spent at this point in the political races nationwide than was spent at this point in the 2006 mid-term elections (and that's in a significantly worse economy to boot)

2. 80% of all political advertising on the air right now is NEGATIVE.

This means that more people are hearing more negative messaging about politicians than ever before.

Also interesting to this dynamic is the fact that much of the negative campaigning energy across the nation is unifying into only two consistent messages:

1. Democrats are out of touch with the American people - just look at the socialist agenda the Obama/Pelosi reign has brought.

2. Republicans are too radical and/or extreme in their views to appropriately represent the American people - just look at these Tea Party radicals.

If you take the branding view that I do -- that all of these political ads actually work together as a single campaign about the products "politicians" and "government" --- then 80% of all advertised messages about these products are saying that "candidates" are not normal people, cannot make decisions for normal people and are, in general, not fit to lead.

Again, if we look at all of this advertising as a single campaign operating at a multi-local level throughout the country, and we look at the amount of money being spent to execute this campaign, then it is hard not to be impressed (and perhaps startled) at the reach and frequency this campaign is garnering.

The ramifications of this thought should not be underestimated.

We all know that advertising works. This is why big companies advertise a lot -- delivering the same message over and over to through mass media in order to create "top of mind" thinking in all those who see the ads repeatedly.

We know from research that this type of consistent and persistent messaging is effective in shaping people's attitudes about specific products. Even if a person does not believe the message the first time they hear it, ongoing repetition of the same message through a variety of channels eventually shifts that opinion.

Americans are being bombarded with the message that there is nobody fit to represent them in government of any level.

They are being told this at a frequency rate that is difficult to ignore and impossible to calculate.

There are many people who might already be saying that this message is "100% true."

But I say that the more people begin to truly believe that there is nobody fit to lead, the closer our form of Democracy is to collapse.

Don't underestimate the power of branding.

Election Money - Supreme Court Ruling

What are we talking about?

The discussion focuses around the January decision by the Supreme Court to render parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act -- a.k.a. “The McCain-Feingold” law -- unconstitutional.

What was the ruling?
Basically, the Supreme Court ruled that there should be no restrictions on corporations spending money out of their general treasury on political advertising.

It’s important to understand that this is not about corporations donating money directly to campaigns. This is about corporations and unions spending their own money on their own political ads.
“Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 57-page majority opinion. “No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

In a 90-page dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens denounced the majority opinion as a dangerous rejection of common sense. “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics,” he wrote, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation,” he said.

It’s also important to note that the Supreme Court upheld (8-1) the part of McCain-Feingold that says that corporate disclosure is still required. In other words, the company spending the money has to identify itself in the ad.
Here’s the catch – In bell-weather state Michigan – The Chamber wanted to know whether it could now form a political action committee for the purpose of making independent expenditures for “express advocacy” ads that directly endorse a candidate, whether it could solicit funds from others to pay for those ads, and whether it would have to disclose which companies or individuals had contributed to the new committee.

In a final ruling on the Chamber’s question issued May 21, Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land said that the Chamber can spend any amount it wishes on independent expenditures for express advocacy, but it cannot collect money from other groups for the purpose of funding these ads.

“A corporation’s political speech,” Land wrote, “must be funded exclusively by that corporation.”

In practical terms, what does this mean?

This ruling means that if Coca-Cola wants spend $12-million on spots that say “Coke supports gay marriage” or “Coke encourages you to vote for Rand Paul,” they have the constitutional right to do so.
They have to spend their own money doing it AND they can’t raise money to do so (in other words, they can’t solicit donations for the express purpose of supporting their political advertising).

So what’s the hubbub?

If you’ll recall pundits (including me) said that this will mean that we will see more money than ever being poured into elections – And as you know from talking to me, I believe money is the great evil in elections AND that when you all elect me to be president, I will propose that we do away with all political advertising (since presumably, I won’t be running an branding and advertising agency anymore so I won’t need the work ☺)

How much of this is HYPE?

When it comes to companies like Coca-Cola or Ford, all of this is just hype.
Corporations like these are not going to spend any of their money advocating for candidates or issue.
The free market is more than powerful enough to curb free speech!

Here’s why:

Anytime a company that sells stuff to the masses takes a political stand or chooses a side, it alienates all those potential customers/clients that disagree with them. There aren’t too many companies of size that are willing pay that much and take that big of a chance.

I can’t imagine a political candidate that is so attractive that I would advise one of my clients to openly piss off half of their potential customers.

In fact, we go out of our way to make sure our clients (and the people who are easily recognized as working for them) stay apolitical at all cost.

This is a bit different when you’re talking about unions and associations, groups like the NEA and the NRA. But these guys already spend gazillions of dollars on political ads – now they will just try to spend a little more.

So what’s the real solution?

Well, I alluded to this in many reports on Sirius/XM's POTUS channel – the real solution is the voters.

There’re things that the people who consume ads should understand as we get closer to election time:

1. Nobody is really going to make political advertising illegal (even though I think they should)

2. AND – there is substantial evidence to suggest political advertising works – it rallies the loyalists and persuades those on the fence to vote.

3. This means that candidates and political issues folk will always try to find a way to get MORE advertising on the air (in other words, politicians of one political party will always want to encourage an environment that allows more their party to run more ads while ensuring that their opponents can’t run as many.

NOW HERE ARE THE BIGGIES

4. Political advertising is considered a form of “political speech”. That means that it does not fall under the jurisdiction of “Truth In Advertising” laws.

5. Next to ad time, candidates spend a ton of money on polling – they do this so that they know what you – the voter – want to hear them say. They then use this polling data to craft their commercials (I know, my company works very closely with polling companies for political spots).

6. The result of this is that candidates can and will say whatever it is they believe you want them to say in order to get you to vote for them.

Basically political ads are one of the few places candidates can outright lie about themselves and their opponents – unchallenged and uninterrupted for the duration of that commercial.
In that commercial, however, the voter has the responsibility to research the claims as to what is factual and not (go hang out at politifact.com).

The voter should also understand the messaging and the branding of the spot to understand what the candidate is trying to make them think – and more importantly – feel.

There is going to be a lot of money spent to try to get you to vote one way or the other. (I will be receiving some of that money and my job is going to be to get you to vote one way or the other.) Trust me. I’m good at my job – so are all the other guys.

Wanna avoid having some guy like me shape your opinion? Do your research. As things heat up, tap into non-biased resources to help.

Branding Immigration

The day the healthcare bill was signed into law, another event was taking place on the grounds of the National Mall.

More than 200,000 people came to Washington DC to demonstrate for comprehensive immigration reform.

Obviously, that story was buried in the signing of healthcare, but it resurfaced in a big way weeks later after the signing of the Arizona immigration law.

All cards on the table, my company – The M Network – is the company that’s did all the ads for the Washington DC rally as well the other immigration demonstrations that have been happening all over the country recently. (“si no es ahora… cuando?”)

Because of that work, we might have a little different view of all of this than the traditional pundits.

The real issue here – the one that nobody is talking about – is the fact that we need illegal immigrants.

This is not about the rights of any person within our borders or the pain and suffering going on in the countries where most of these people are coming from or even the Democrats importing voters. It’s not about any of the things you’ve heard recently on cable news channels or talk radio.

The reason we need illegal immigrants is for very practical, financial reasons.

One good one is that in illegal immigrants, we have a workforce that actually pays into government programs like social security without ever having any chance of getting money out of those same government programs.

If it weren’t for illegals, those programs would go broke much faster.

Another reason why we need illegal immigrants is this: If all the working illegal aliens in this country became legal, imagine what that would do to the cost of labor. They would all have to be paid minimum wage. More expensive still is that they would also have the ability to unionize.

Imagine what that would do to the price of strawberries!

From a branding standpoint, however, you can’t open those cans of worms.

For those who are for the kind of immigration reform being bandied about at these rallies, it’s important to paint amnesty as something noble and righteous and necessary to help those less fortunate.

For those who are against this kind of immigration reform, it’s important to paint amnesty as an affront to our laws and a threat to our safety.

So let’s talk about immigration!

Let’s talk about immigration! That way we won’t have to talk about the fact that, by law, we must pay our legal employees exponentially higher than the rest of the world pays their employees. As a result we have no ability to compete with them on price for basic manufacturing goods and, therefore, are pigeonholed into exporting high priced jobs and/or importing illegal, low priced laborers.

Let’s talk about immigration! That way we can hide —at least for a little while longer – the fact that the government puts out far more on government programs (like social security) than it could ever possibly bring in.

The big problem, of course, is that you can’t logically talk about immigration without first addressing these other issues.

But that won’t ever happen – because the immigration debate isn’t about reform, it’s about branding… and it’s about the worst kind of branding, branding without substance.

The Massachusetts Message

When Barak Obama campaigned on a message of “change” and “hope,” America jumped on the bandwagon. The message resonated because America believed a fundamental “change” in the broken, old-school, business-as-usual Washington crowd would bring “hope” to the American economy, security and overall standing in the world.

After one year of rushed legislation, bulldozer diplomacy, back-door deals and ill-conceived publicity stunts, it’s become apparent to many that what Barak Obama really meant by his messages of “change” and “hope” were exactly the opposite – that a fundamental “change” in America would bring “hope” to the broken, old-school, business-as-usual Washington crowd.

And that is what America is pissed off at.

This disconnect with how the target audience defined the new administration’s brand is why, in my opinion, we’ve seen political upsets in Virginia, New Jersey and now in Massachusetts.

At least from my branding vantage point, these upsets are not a repudiation of the Obama agenda, as right-wing pundits would want us to believe.

Similarly, this is not a function of some “deep discontent with the pace of change” as communications from the Obama administration and pundits from the left are suggesting.

Instead, the anger and frustration coming from the American voter seems to me to be about HOW things are getting done in Washington as opposed to WHAT things are getting done.

America, in general, wants health care reform. They just don’t want a government takeover filled with politically motivated “deals” and a very, very big price tag to drive up taxes and eliminate personal choice.

America, in general, wants Banks and Wall Street to be held accountable for screwing with the economy, tanking people’s retirement funds and selling people mortgages they could never afford. They don’t, however, want the government to take over our banking industry and create intrusive mandates on how private business concerns are to be run.

Most importantly, though, American voters want a seat at the table. The country does not want people they do not trust making decisions that will heavily impact their lives and the lives of their children. They especially don’t want these decisions to be made behind closed doors. And they definitely don’t want these decisions to be politicized in any way.

As the Democrats and Republicans in congress continue to feud between themselves – deploying strategies and setting policy seemingly solely as a means of partisan sparring – the American voter has felt increasingly left out of the process.
The beauty of the system we have in place, though, is that it always allows the voter to eventually speak. And speak they did - in New Jersey, in Virginia and now in Massachusetts.

Did you hear what they said?

Our “hope” will come with a fundamental “change” in how Washington plays politics.

Longtime incumbents beware.