This is the New York Times, And It Disapproves of John McCain's Message
The New York Times writes, in despair, that it is "disheartened" by the mendacious McCain advertising campaign, and most of all, by the "closing line…'I'm John McCain and I approved this message", that brings to a fine finish the most recent specimen of broadcast falsehoods. "Flat-out lies", The Times writes, and then it draws one lesson for voters--that they should be "wary" of all McCain ads--and another lesson for McCain, that he should "fire his ad writers". But here the Times seems reluctant to take away from the facts of the matter the most obvious "lesson"--McCain has no wish nor logical reason to "fire" the writers producing the very ads he is approving.
Disclaimers: A Decision from the FEC and Clarification
Those who followed the first Federal Election Commission meeting in a long time will know that it issued two Advisory Opinions, adopting the staff recommendations in both instances. One of the Opinions, issued to Club for Growth (2007-33), rejected a modification of the oral disclaimer, the stand by your ad (SBYA), for 10- and 15-second advertisements. The Commission concluded that the statute did not afford such flexibility for non-candidate committees, such as Club for Growth.
Disclaimers and the Space for Political Messaging: The Question of FEC Authority
A disclaimer, written or spoken, may be omitted from a political advertisement if its inclusion in full is "impractical." 11 CFR § 110.11(f)(ii). This FEC "exception" to the disclaimer rules offers as examples of qualifying advertisements, "skywriting, water towers [and] wearing apparel"; but it applies this "exception" more generally to "other means of displaying an advertisement of such a nature that the inclusion of the disclaimer would be impractical." Id. How the far this exception goes—the range of ads it might cover—has never been elaborated in detail.
Less than Full Disclosure: the Center for Competitive Politics’ Understated Goal in Attacking Ohio’s Regulation of Electioneering Communications
The Center for Competitive Politics, hoping to expand the protections afforded issue advertising by WRTL II, has chosen Ohio for the next field of battle and reporting requirements are its primary target. Ohio’s law also subjects the advertising to source restrictions, within thirty days of an election, but CCP has the fresh club of WRTL II to bat these away, on behalf of Ohio Right to Life. The reporting issues represent the true frontier here, and CCP has picked its fight carefully.
The New Argument Over Disclosure
An unsigned piece at the Center of Competitive Politics site questions compelled disclosure of political spending. It concedes some case for disclosure of contributions to candidates. It is wholly unimpressed with forced reporting to the government of independent activity.
Two reasons are given for wariness about compelled disclosure: the danger of reprisal against those whose political affiliations are made known to all, on the public record, and the distortion of debate when attention is turned to the authorship of positions rather than their merits.
Also...
Studying Disclosure, And Its Uses 8/23/07
Disclosure for Thee and Not for Me: and the Warnings (Not) of Mr. Ugarte 6/22/07
Celebrating McCain-Feingold’s Birthday: “Speech! Speech!” 3/28/07
"1984" 3/22/07
Thinking about the “Bundling” Disclosure 2/9/07
The Never Ending Disclosure War 12/20/06
The Anonymous Donor 8/7/06
McCain and the Blogger on His Payroll 7/27/06
Accepted Verities and Heresy in Political Reform 6/7/06
The Uses of Secrecy and Disclosure in Political Reform 5/1/06