PA Rep. Thinks Anti-Abortion Radio Ads Not Very "Classy"

[DToTheJ]

Democratic Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper is pushing four Pennsylvania radio stations, including "Classy 100" in nearby Erie, to drop an ad paid for by an abortion rights group that says her voting "yes" on health reform was "the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortions ever."

This is such a big deal, it made the AP wire today!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...Sfqi_KOpTARYxTIfi5tgD9IN3AJ80?docId=D9IN3AJ80

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

There are several hot-button-issues being kicked around these days... and one of them landed in the Supreme Court this week. That is the one where a family sued the Kansas Church for "disrupting" the funeral of a service man who died for our country. (Since they did stay back a distance designated by the police, one can argue that they did not disrupt the actual funeral.) The next court reversed the original judgement on grounds of freedom of speech.

Not being a lawyer, I don't know what position the family is arguing in this case. In recent years a "Freedom of Privacy" has been developed as a legal concept in this country.

If I want to bury my son, do I have an expectation that for one hour should/must hold their expectation of free speech on a leash?

Has the discussion of some topics become so volatile that we are ready to rethink what Freedom of Speech really means... what it realy includes?

Before someone cries: "Foul, not on the topic of broadcasting!" I would point out that we wouldn't be having this discussion if it were not for broadcasting being the stage where this free speech or lack there-of is happening.

The Talk Radio personalities have signaled to the American Public that restraint is no longer a virtue. Talk Radio personalities have signaled that a good citizen in this day and age is one who "raises his/her voice... to raise hell" on topics we would not have uttered in public a couple of generations ago.

Maybe a bad choice of phrase here, but "speaking pattern have come out of the closet" in America. There are days when I think that is great. People are now willing to talk about mental illness, depression, etc. People are now willing to talk about aids prevention, safe-sex etc.

But pictures or verbal descriptions of aborted fetuses and signs and slogans indicating "God has dis-inherted" our entire nation really stretch the envelope.

But maybe being stretched is the price of freedom that the rest of us pay. Our military has demonstrated what is the ultimate price of freedom.

PA rep Thinks Anti-Abortion Radio Ads are Not Very Classy? That question indicates they ARE at least a little bit classy. Maybe the rep should claim the ads have NO class!

Times have changed. Particularly in the South, people used to get exercised because there were beer ads on the radio.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Same thing is happening in Alaska. Lisa Murkowski had her lawyer send letters to all of the broadcasters threatening them that they had better not run an ad from her opponent that she disagrees with.

Our high and mighty political leaders don't really believe in the First Amendment, it seems.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Same thing is happening in Alaska. Lisa Murkowski had her lawyer send letters to all of the broadcasters threatening them that they had better not run an ad from her opponent that she disagrees with.

Our high and mighty political leaders don't really believe in the First Amendment, it seems.

The First Amendment starts out "Congress shall pass no law". It doesn't say anything about individuals brow-beating others.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Same thing is happening in Alaska. Lisa Murkowski had her lawyer send letters to all of the broadcasters threatening them that they had better not run an ad from her opponent that she disagrees with.

Our high and mighty political leaders don't really believe in the First Amendment, it seems.

The First Amendment starts out "Congress shall pass no law". It doesn't say anything about individuals brow-beating others.

When the brow-beating is being done by people who have the power to pass laws, it has to be viewed
in that context.

 

[gr8oldies]

If the ad comes from a legally qualified candidate for federal office, it cannot be refused (unless the station refuses all political ads) or edited. A congressional candidate could drop F bombs for 55 seconds and say "paid for by" and it has to be run. Its been tested all the way to the Supreme Court. There's a guy who runs for Congress every election from Kentucky for the purpose of buying time on WLW to spout anti-Semitic nonsense and 9/11 was an inside job conspiracy theories. The Phelps' are disgusting, no question. If I had to be like them to go to heaven, I'd pass. I think where this particular case may have a problem with is that the plaintiff didn't see the protestors at the funeral, only on TV after the fact. Westboro claims because the family having given interviews made it a public event (WBC said in front of the USCS "they wanted people to bow down to that dead body". Disgusting!
Westboro's disruptions are being handled by the Patriot Guard Riders, who shields the family from them, drowning out protesters by singing patriotic songs and revving motorcycle engines. It's not like Westboro shows up with thousands of people. Maybe 3 to 5. Why even bother covering them on TV.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Same thing is happening in Alaska. Lisa Murkowski had her lawyer send letters to all of the broadcasters threatening them that they had better not run an ad from her opponent that she disagrees with.

Our high and mighty political leaders don't really believe in the First Amendment, it seems.

The First Amendment starts out "Congress shall pass no law". It doesn't say anything about individuals brow-beating others.

When the brow-beating is being done by people who have the power to pass laws, it has to be viewed
in that context.

I didn't know Murkowski could pass a law without getting at enough of the rest of the House and Senate to go along with here to exceed 50%.

The thing is, you're talking abstract and theoretical, while I'm talking practical. Those are two extremely different things.

 

[almaniac27]

In the end it probably doesn't matter. Abortion, along with gay rights, is one of those wedge issues that candidates like to talk about to divide voters but once they get into office they do nothing about, mostly because these issues are up to the courts, not Congress.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Same thing is happening in Alaska. Lisa Murkowski had her lawyer send letters to all of the broadcasters threatening them that they had better not run an ad from her opponent that she disagrees with.

Our high and mighty political leaders don't really believe in the First Amendment, it seems.

The First Amendment starts out "Congress shall pass no law". It doesn't say anything about individuals brow-beating others.

When the brow-beating is being done by people who have the power to pass laws, it has to be viewed
in that context.

I didn't know Murkowski could pass a law without getting at enough of the rest of the House and Senate to go along with here to exceed 50%.

The thing is, you're talking abstract and theoretical, while I'm talking practical. Those are two extremely different things.

Hypothetically, let's say that you are a station manager, and you get complaints about an ad from two listeners:

1) Me, John Q. Listener, sitting out here amongst the many your audience,

and

2) Congresswoman Shirley Blowhard, running for re-election, and if successful likely to sit in a position
of power on a committee that could make life for your station and it's owners a living hell.

If getting the complaint from the latter would be enough for you to give it a second thought and
perhaps even back down, then the chilling effect has been achieved and I've proven my point.

 

[Talk_Dude]

Hypothetically, let's say that you are a station manager, and you get complaints about an ad from two listeners:

1) Me, John Q. Listener, sitting out here amongst the many your audience,

and

2) Congresswoman Shirley Blowhard, running for re-election, and if successful likely to sit in a position
of power on a committee that could make life for your station and it's owners a living hell.

If getting the complaint from the latter would be enough for you to give it a second thought and
perhaps even back down, then the chilling effect has been achieved and I've proven my point.

Hypthetically, I'd first look to see whether or not Shirley Blowhard was likely to win. Second, I'd remember that politicians have really, really short memories. Third, I'd remember that no individual Congressperson can do anything that their party leadership doesn't approve. So, as long as the leadership of Shirley Blowhard's party is likely to support you, I wouldn't worry about Shirley Blowhard. I also wouldn't pay much attention to John Q. Listener, either.

I'm not saying that's the right thing to do. I'm saying that if I was a suit working at a radio station, then I'd do what a suit does.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Hypothetically, let's say that you are a station manager, and you get complaints about an ad from two listeners:

1) Me, John Q. Listener, sitting out here amongst the many your audience,

and

2) Congresswoman Shirley Blowhard, running for re-election, and if successful likely to sit in a position
of power on a committee that could make life for your station and it's owners a living hell.

If getting the complaint from the latter would be enough for you to give it a second thought and
perhaps even back down, then the chilling effect has been achieved and I've proven my point.

You have worked hard to set up a straw-man.... oh,... a straw WOMAN and you seem confidant you have proven some kind of point.

If our little 200 year old experiment in self-government is going to survive, we need a reasonable amount of "doing the right thing" from each of the actors on your bale-of-straw state.

So I get a letter or phone call from a listener. Were they reasonable? Can I tell? Every citizen needs to suck-it-up a bit and "do the right thing" when they try to influence the content on any media.

The theory of our system is that we elect people because we think the one we voted for was the best one to "do the right thing".... whatever that turns out to be. Just like I needed to analyze the person claiming to be a listener and determine if the listener's request is a healthy request, I have to have communication with Shirley Blowhard and evaluate whatever she is requesting. Since she is in a position to affect the future policy, part of my job in "doing the right thing" is to make sure she understands my point of view, and that I have heard her point of view.

Finally, If every business person in America takes the attitude: "screw everyone else! I'm only going to do what is good for ME" then we know who the problem is in all this political mess and trying to prove that self-government really works.

Since you didn't tell us what the listener requested, and you didn't tell us what the congresswoman requested, you haven't given us a scenario that proves much of anything. All we have is a lot of loose straw blowing all over the neighborhood.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Ultimately the voters get to decide. And increasingly I think they are taking a dim view of
candidates who try and use pressure tactics to pre-empt their opponents' ads.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

That is the theory. But what do voters get to decide? When I go into the booth and look at the ballot I usually mutter: Why are these the only clowns I get to choose from? So I vote for the lesser of two evils. What have I decided?

I have decided to vote for one clown or the other who gets to go to the state house or the U.S. Capitol and do whatever the lobbyist with the most money wants.

So ultimately the voters get to decide very, very little.

On that happy note.... I am off to the fairgrounds to spend an evening in the tent of a political party trying to explain to Joe and Molly Sixpack what they can expect if they vote for the candidate of MY party.

 

[gr8oldies]

Apparently no one read my post. It doesn't matter how much Shirley Blowhard huffs and puffs she can't make the station refuse her opponent's ads because the station cannot refuse them or edit them without being in violation of federal election law.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Apparently no one read my post. It doesn't matter how much Shirley Blowhard huffs and puffs she can't make the station refuse her opponent's ads because the station cannot refuse them or edit them without being in violation of federal election law.

Point accepted. All the more reason why it is so distasteful that she would try.

There is a long unsavory history of politicians trying to intimidate broadcasters over these issues.
Look into the history of LBJ and the Texas radio preachers who opposed him, or FDR and his efforts
to pull the mike plug on the radio priest, Father Coughlin. Father Coughlin may have been a Socialist,
anti-Semitic rabble rouser, but his First Amendment rights were trampled on worse than those perhaps
of any other American Citizen in our history. (not just in radio....at one point they stopped him from
using the US Mail)

 

[fromtheinsideout]

A question regarding the political ads if I may. While stations have certain obligations under federal election law regarding the ads they must carry from those seeking office, do those obligations carry over to third party ads as well, like ads bought by the parties' campaign committees (DCC/RCC) or those run by groups like the Americans for Tax Reform or SEIU or can a station refuse those since they aren't technically candidate ads paid for by the campaigns themselves?

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

There were comments by some people following the "Citizens United" decision back in January that our election process could become turbulent as a result.

The free-flowing unidentified-donor money is now entering the market place like melting snow in the Spring.

It remains to be seen whether this non-regulated money will be 10% the size of the approved and regulated candidate spending or if it will turn out to be 10 times bigger that all the approved and regulated candidate money.

The flushing sound I hear is apparently all the FCC rules about campaign advertising going down the toilet.

Will elections in future years be un-regulated "O.K. Corral" shootouts, or will congress decide that we need a society that plays by some kind of rules.

As I like to say: "It ain't gonna be purty" any way it goes. :-\

 

[Talk_Dude]

There were comments by some people following the "Citizens United" decision back in January that our election process could become turbulent as a result.

The free-flowing unidentified-donor money is now entering the market place like melting snow in the Spring.

It remains to be seen whether this non-regulated money will be 10% the size of the approved and regulated candidate spending or if it will turn out to be 10 times bigger that all the approved and regulated candidate money.

The flushing sound I hear is apparently all the FCC rules about campaign advertising going down the toilet.

Will elections in future years be un-regulated "O.K. Corral" shootouts, or will congress decide that we need a society that plays by some kind of rules.

As I like to say: "It ain't gonna be purty" any way it goes. :-\

Maybe, instead of worrying about rules and laws to control how much anyone can spend to get their message heard, we can work on getting the voters educated enough that they won't fall for BS, no matter how much they hear it. It amazes me that people who work in media and who should know that a crappy product won't sell no matter how hard you advertise it (see New Coke and Crystal Pepsi) don't realize that a crappy candidate shouldn't get elected no matter how much they spend on campaign lies ads.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

Maybe, instead of worrying about rules and laws to control how much anyone can spend to get their message heard, we can work on getting the voters educated enough that they won't fall for BS, no matter how much they hear it.

I don't know where it is, but somewhere in The Constitution it is clearly spelled out that Bubba has the right to be a dumb-ass if he wants to.

When the people we send to Washington struggle, debate, shed tears and sweat a lot trying to write laws about elections and campaigns and voting are really arguing about what to do with Bubba or whatever name you want to assign to "voterus-sansinelligentus": We have to let him vote. When he falls into the gears of the democratic machinery, what are we allowed to do to keep him from gumming up and jamming the process?

 

[apostate]

A question regarding the political ads if I may. While stations have certain obligations under federal election law regarding the ads they must carry from those seeking office, do those obligations carry over to third party ads as well, like ads bought by the parties' campaign committees (DCC/RCC) or those run by groups like the Americans for Tax Reform or SEIU or can a station refuse those since they aren't technically candidate ads paid for by the campaigns themselves?

Stations can and do reject political ads from 529s, and other non-candidate sources. It happens all the time, including in the Super Bowl.

In terms of the "political rate" (the lowest rates on a station within 60 days of a general election and within 45 days of a primary), that is only mandated for candidates for federal office, but commonly extended to political candidates of all types.

The First Amendment does not allow lying with malice aforethought. That seemed to be Ms. Dahlkemper's, and plenty of other candidates', gripe. It takes too long to litigate these things, so, while it's unlikely to be effective, about the only chance candidates have to remedy the damage done by attack ads that are not true is to pressure stations to reject them.

I make no statement regarding the veracity of any of the claims, but that's the issue: A candidate seeking to suppress ads that (at least from their own assessment) aren't true.