I know we don’t agree on much these days, but we should be able to agree on this: Only informed people can make informed decisions. If you’re working with false or misleading information, you can’t possibly have everything you need to make a good decision.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), backed by federal law, requires that all claims in advertisements must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair, and must be evidence-based.
Here’s a snippet from the FTC Web site:
“When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it’s on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.“
For example: If I see an ad for shampoo that claims it will make my hair shinier and more manageable, then using that shampoo should make my hair shinier and more manageable.
That looks pretty clear and straightforward to me. I wonder why this doesn’t apply to political advertisements.
Here in California, the price of gas is higher than pretty much everywhere else in the country. We have both oil and refineries here in CA so there’s no real reason for the price to be so high. Well, there is a reason. It’s because this state has much higher gas taxes than pretty much everywhere else in the country.
A couple of years ago, there was a proposal to increase the gas tax by another twenty cents a gallon. The reason being was that the roads here in the state needed repairs. So, for weeks before the election, we were bombarded with advertisements saying things like, “Vote for proposition XX if you want better roads. “
What they didn’t say was that the taxes on gas already being collected to pay for fixing our roads had been reallocated for use on something else. The reason the roads weren’t getting fixed wasn’t because we weren’t being taxed to pay for the repairs. The reason the roads were in such a state of disrepair was that politicians had been robbing Peter to pay Paul. But they didn’t say that.
Instead, they hammered us with “vote for better roads” advertisements hoping that enough people would fall for their misinformation. And it worked. The gas tax increase was approved by a majority of uninformed voters.
If the Truth in Advertising law applied to political advertisements, the advertisement would have been more like this:
“We spent the money you already gave us to fix the roads on something else. So, we need you to give us more money if you want the roads fixed. We probably won’t steal your money again this time, but you have no way of knowing for sure.”
Wouldn’t that be refreshing to see?
Just last year, my local city council proposed a sales tax increase of 1.5%. The advertisements claimed, “If you support our first responders, vote for Measure E.” What they didn’t say was that the extra taxes collected would go into the General fund, which has been historically mismanaged by the City. It’s true that part of the General fund goes to first responders. But, part of it also goes to salary increases and bonuses for city employees. While it is possible that the first responders may get some of the money, the implication was that they would be getting all of it.
Unfortunately, hardly anyone did their research and they voted to give the city council more money to mismanage. The sales tax increase was approved by a majority of uninformed voters.
If the Truth in Advertising law applied, the advertisement we would have heard:
“Vote to increase the sales tax so that we can all get raises and bonuses. If there’s any money left over, we might give some to the first responders. But, we probably won’t.”
Taking this on a national scale, the results from a poll taken after the election show nearly 20% of people who voted for Joe Biden wouldn’t have voted for him if they had known about his track record and had better information about the accomplishments of President Trump. Forty-five percent of Biden voters said they didn’t know about Hunter Biden’s shady deals in Ukraine and his close ties with China and 9.4% said they wouldn’t have voted for him if they had known.
We should be treating political advertisements exactly like we treat any other type of advertisements. If a rule applies to protect you when you’re deciding which shampoo to buy, it should also apply when you’re deciding what, or who, to vote for. Voting in an election is infinitely more important than purchasing a hair care product. Because, an uninformed electorate isn’t buying shampoo, it’s buying into a sham.
We don’t need a new law, we just need to apply a law that we already have.
The FTC also has a rule about Influencers. If your business works with influencers, you need to take the necessary steps to clearly disclose those connections.
If the Truth in Advertising law applied, here’s the advertisement we would have seen:
“My son Hunter has close ties with the Chinese and Ukraine. I used my position as Vice President of the United States to facilitate business deals that have made him millions. The FBI is in possession of Hunter’s laptop which contains content showing that he’s extremely susceptible to blackmail and coercion. To protect my family, I will continue to allow myself to be influenced by the Chinese and other foreign governments.“
“I’m Joe Biden and I approve this message.”
