Advertising Loophole?
This past weekend, we went to my buddy’s house for a Packer Party. The only thing more plentiful than Timmy’s smorgasbord of delicious smoked meats were all the political ads. It seemed that every break was littered with spots denouncing one of the presidential or congressional candidates. Instead of promoting the platform of a candidate, however, the ads paint an opponent in an extremely bad light.
Some commercials, though, take negatively to a different level.
Earlier this month, an anti-abortion ad aired during “The View,” criticizing the show’s hosts Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin, Sara Haines, Alyssa Farah Griffin and Ana Navarro. The commercial featured pictures of the talk show’s personalities, then cut to other journalists and celebrities, including Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift, Oprah Winfrey, Samuel L. Jackson, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Robert DeNiro, Billie Eilish, Wolf Blitzer, Rachel Maddow, Lester Holt and Dana Bash.
As the photos flashed, a voiceover says, “I am so sick of stupid celebrities and lying journalists” and calls them “fools” for failing to “follow the science.” The ad then flashes to very graphic photos of aborted fetuses and compares the public figures, who are pro-choice, to Nazi leaders Joseph Goebbels and Leni Riefenstahl.
Because of the shocking nature of the ad, before it aired, ABC posted a disclaimer that read, “The following is a paid political advertisement, and the ABC television network is required to carry it by federal law. The advertisement contains scenes that may be disturbing to children. Viewer discretion is advised.”
The law ABC is referring to is a Federal Communications Commission regulation that prohibits broadcast stations “from censoring or rejecting political ads that are paid for and sponsored by legally qualified candidates.” Accordingly, broadcasters are precluded from editing the advertisements for use of what may be considered shocking images or language.
The rule only applies to candidates, not political organizations. Further, only network television must abide by the regulations, not cable stations or web-based properties like podcasts.
Randall Terry, a longtime anti-abortion activist, is behind the shocking ads. Terry is a fringe candidate for president as a member of the Constitution Party. As a candidate, he is entitled to airtime for his commercials. “I’m not going to be the president,” Terry acknowledges. “I’m not delusional. The whole point of this is to cause Kamala’s defeat.”
So, Terry has been running anti-Harris commercials at a national level, in addition to over 40 ads at a local level across the country, tailored to states where an abortion measure is on the ballot. And except for a brief printed message on the screen at the end of the commercial, his ads don’t even mention his candidacy. “This is the last bastion of free speech,” Terry said in an interview. “The only place that you can still have free speech is on a licensed station as a federal candidate.”
While he is aware of the warnings many stations have shown before his ads, he doesn’t object to them. “They’re doing what they feel is in the best interest of the station,” he said. “That’s up to them. I can’t fault them for that. Look, these are hard images to see.”
Critics, however, claim that Terry’s ads manipulate FCC regulations to promote hateful rhetoric. “It’s definitely concerning,” said Christian F. Nunes, president of the National Organization for Women. “No one should be able to use running for office as a free pass in order to spew hate speech.”
Either way, I can’t wait for the election to be over so football games can go back to normal by having ads that pitch pickup trucks and chicken wings.
Reg P. Wydeven
Latest posts by Reg P. Wydeven (see all)
- Catfished - January 21, 2025
- Nickel-and-Dime - January 14, 2025
- Preserve and Protect - January 7, 2025
- How the Potential Extension of the Tax Cuts and Job Act Could Significantly Impact Estate Planning - January 2, 2025
- Master of the Public Domain - December 31, 2024