Tax Political Advertising

by muon

If we learned anything from this election, it's that obscene amounts of money that could have been better spent elsewhere went to put ads on TV, radio and the Internet, to put mounds of junk ads into our mailboxes, place billboards and signs all over our towns and highways, and of course, shower us with lovely, unceasing robocalls. Shedon Adelson alone spent $57.7 million on super-PACs.

Everyone says we ought to curb campaign spending, but it's not going to happen, not as long as the politicians on the receiving end of the funds, or who benefit from super-PAC support, are the ones who need to figure out how to reform the way they campaign.

So, while they're spinning their wheels, let's try a stop-gap measure. Impose a federal tax on all political advertising that supports federal candidates, pans their opponents, or where money changes hands so that a political view can be expressed to, say, more than 500 people at once. This would include advertising by lobbying groups trying to influence legislation.  State taxes could be imposed on advertising for state office candidates or lobbyists trying to influence state legislation, like all the pro-fracking ads on TV. I'd even be make an exception for bumper stickers and campaign buttons, so regular citizens could express their views without being taxed. (But not lawn signs, which are as ugly as billboards. You want a lawn sign, fine, but you ought to at least pay something to your town for ruining the scenery.)

I think I'd mind the ads and billboards and robocalls a smidge less if I knew a percentage of the megabucks spent would be used to, say, fund election reforms, or help pay off the deficit.

Using People

Ryan's phony photo op

by muon

Back when Jon Fox was running for reelection as a GOP congressman, I participated in a charity walk in his district. He showed up, registered to walk, and donned one of the free T-shirts. As the local paper snapped photos, Fox started walking with us. A half-block later, he got into a car and sped away. The rest of us finished the walk and collected our pledges. Oh, Fox may have given a donation, I don't know. But he didn't do the 10K with the rest of us. For him, the event was no more than a photo op.

A few days ago, Paul Ryan and his campaign pushed past volunteers to get into a soup kitchen in Ohio. He wasn't there to help out. In fact, the kitchen was already done for the day, people fed, food put away, everything washed up. But Ryan was after a photo op (one has to wonder why, since his whole budget and philosophy is based on NOT giving handouts to the less fortunate). Still, Ryan donned an apron and washed perfectly clean pots while his campaign took photos. When the administrators of the kitchen heard of the incident, they were outraged. No one from the Romney/Ryan camp had asked permission to allow campaign photos to be taken there. So the news today isn't about what a great fella Ryan is for helping out at the soup kitchen, it's about the arrogance of his campaign in using decent people for his own gain.

Mitt Romney was asked recently to stop telling a story at his rallies about meeting a Navy SEAL who later died in Libya. The family didn't want their son's name politicized (the reason I'm not naming him in this article), especially since, apparently, the SEAL hadn't liked Romney after meeting him.

I'm not saying only Republicans do this sort of thing, though it seems more blatant on their part, at least where I live. I'm much more aware these days of all the personal stories in political ads--how congressman X single-handedly helped this person or that family. The thing is, I know a talent agent, so I've learned that many of the ads are scripted and actors are hired. Or if they're real people telling true stories, there's usually something more to it. While Obamacare was being fought over in Congress, an ad ran featuring a local doctor voicing her professional opposition. I looked her up. She was a real doctor. But she was also a tea party activist with an interest in running for office herself someday. She was using the issue to further her own political career.  I've googled other people who've appeared on ads (if their names are given) and I've found the same sort of cronyism. I'm not saying there are no ads featuring sincere people who have no alternative motives, but I'm now so cynical of all of the ads, it doesn't matter.

Anyway, I'm not interested in stories about how a politician has helped one person or family. I want to hear how the candidates intend to help everyone, every citizen in the country. Not just the rich ones or poor ones or white ones or minorities. Everyone. So, all you seeking office, quit with the phony photo ops and heart-rending stories that are likely more fiction than fact. Start talking issues.

Are You a Racist? Take This Quiz and Find Out

by muon

I was told last week that suggestions of racism among Romney supporters is highly offensive. I was told this by someone who was more of an Obama non-supporter than a true Romney supporter. He stomped his foot and shrieked while making his point, so I know he was sincere.

Okay, I agree, generalizing is never a good idea. Thus I invite everyone, no matter whom you support, to take this quiz, add up your score, and see how you do.


A) I believe President Obama was born

1-  in Kenya, and is therefore not a citizen and not qualified to be President.
2-  possibly outside of the US, but he has an American mother, so it doesn't matter (as in the case of George Romney, Mitt's dad, who was born in Mexico, yet no one questioned his citizenship when he ran for president)
3-  in Hawaii, and he should have been believed even before producing 2 birth certificates, but now that he has produced them, get over it.

B) I believe President Obama

1-  is a Muslim, and that's a bad thing.
2-  might be a Muslim, but in a country where we have freedom of religion, what does it matter?
3-  is a Christian, specifically, a member of the United Church of Christ, like more than one million Americans.

C)  I believe

1-  candidates for president should have American-sounding names.
2-  if a candidate has an odd name, it doesn't mean he wouldn't make a good president.
3-  that all Americans have American-sounding names. It's that melting pot thing.

D) I believe Mitt Romney's welfare ads

1-  show that lazy black welfare recipients have been released from their work requirement by Obama, and are taking tax money right out of the pockets of hard-working white people.
2-  not sure what the ads show, but I'm sure not all welfare recipients are black and not all workers are white. Even if they were, shouldn't we help those in need?
3-  are proven lies. Work requirements have not been dropped, only moved to the states, which is what states requested (including Republican governors). The states in turn have to meet a set of federal regulations to keep their right to make their own reforms. Moreover, as of 2011, nearly the same number of white and black families (about 38%) were receiving welfare. The remaining 20-some% went to other minorities.


If you scored

12 -  You're not a racist and are well-informed to boot.
8-11 - You're not a racist; your heart's in the right place. You just need to get your news from reliable sources and don't believe everything you hear. Go to factcheck.org, which checks statements and ads from BOTH sides.
5-7 - Try the reliable sources mentioned above for two weeks and take the quiz again. Put all political ads and right-wing talk shows on "mute."
4 - Sorry, you're a racist. No getting around it. If this offends you, think of how much more you offend me.

Negative Campaigning, Really?

by Ruth A. Sheets

This morning on the news, I heard someone lamenting that we are already experiencing negative campaigning on the presidential trail.  Mitt Romney is demanding that Barack Obama apologize for his comments about Romney’s  time at Bain Capital and Obama refuses.  President Obama is demanding that Romney release his tax returns and Romney refuses.  Is this really negative campaigning?

There are clearly some discrepencies in Mitt Romney’s story of when he was and was not at Bain Capital.  Is it negativity to want to know the truth?  Is it negativity to ask for tax return information from a candidate who has loudly demanded such information from his opponents?

Negativity is Thomas Jefferson’s party calling John Adams’ supporters “herds of harpies”  and calling Adams’ time in office a “reign of terror” in 1800.  Negativity is the atomic bomb ad against Barry Goldwater in 1964 and the Willie Horton ad by George H.W. Bush in 1988.   Negativity is what the Swift Boaters did to John Kerry in 2004.  There is nothing so far in this campaign that comes even close,. 

So, what is going on here?  It seems that when opponents of Republicans expect candidates to make public there credentials, describe their plans for the country in some detail, or explain their personal or business history, it is negative campaigning.  It seems that the smears are only to be used by Republicans and the superpacs who love them.  Democrats and others are just supposed to stand by and put up a feeble defense.  This defense makes them look guilty of whatever they have been accused of.  Defense is not as popular as offense in American society today.  The guy who delivers the first punch must have the story right or they wouldn’t say it.  Ha! 

I am not a fan of negative campaigning, but the one thing one can be sure of, it works and it is hard to stand against.  People scream that they don’t like it, but they vote for the guy who says the most negative things.  If you are not sure of this, look at the 2010 mid-term elections around the country. 

Democrats will pay for their unwillingness to initiate some honest negativity for years, maybe even decades, and so will the 99% in America.  The one percent is delighted and ready to strike again.  This time, President Obama struck first.  I hope he can keep the pressure on Mr. Romney and not compromise or feel remorse for demanding the disclosures Americans deserve.