How are the corporation election ads any different that the sly 501(c)(3) ads?

[zulchzulu]

I'm as pissed as the next person with the SCOTUS decision on allowing corporations to do as political ads and still have to add the tagline at the end saying "this advertisement is sponsored by...." so you can see where the branding/message came from.

In terms of corporate branding, I seriously doubt that media-saavy corporations would want to tag their hit/attack on a candidate with their name mentioned at the end.

They are going to do the same tact that has been done for years. They would set up a third-party advocacy group that's branded with a nice name, an easy web site address and tag the ad with something like "Sponsored by people who care about you. People who care.com"...

They would set up a 501(c)(3)corporation and just do the same thing as the Swift Boaters did in 2004. They are not going to tag their corporate brand that's tied to a hit ad.

That's like taking your pants off and showing your undies. That's, um...

No. If you're hiring advertising pros, you make it a little more difficult to follow the money.

You put on a nice suit, hire a CG video production group with neato effects, talk a smooth talk and hire some guy who does eery string soundtracks in GarageBand. The tagline is "SaveAmericaNow" with the handy URL to get the viral ads and political materials.

My point is that corporate entities have been doing the 501(c)(3) route to get their "point" across and will probably still cloak their corporate brand behind a well-oiled, slick third-party group.


NOTE: If you're UnRec'ing this, show me your genius on how this is wrong... or be a pussy.

[Deep13]

1. I'm sure they would create front groups like they have been. nt

[zulchzulu]

2. Exactly...

What SCOTUS did yesterday was stating the obvious... corporations can do political ads without hiding their identity.

But do you really think Bank of America would do an ad attacking Obama and tag their name at the end? They would hire some media relations company to brand and set up a 501(c)(3)with a "cool" name and look and have a web address to spill out the rest of the messaging.

Anyone who is in advertising and deals with corporate clients knows this is how it's done.

[T Wolf]

3. I don't really see any difference either. They were able to get around the "intent"

easily enough with the shell groups. And even when they were caught doing something technically illegal, it was not until after an election and the worst they suffered was some minor fine.

Maybe it is just an in-your-face "fuck you" to those who might try and rein them in. And maybe they will now be able to do their shit more straight-forwardly, without having to bother with creating the phony front-groups. And maybe these "expenses" will be tax deductible now as well.

But, if it riles up more people, I am all for it.

[TheKentuckian]

4. Opening the floodgates is the difference

I think you're being a frog in boiling water that is trying to convince it's self that turning up the heat ain't so bad.

[OHdem10]

5. Amount of money they can spend until the polls close.

[enough]

6. The difference is the scale of money available. The corpoartations have

billions at their disposal.

[moondust]

10. Much more than unions or anybody else ever will.

[zulchzulu]

11. I think a lower-budgeted pro-union ad would kick the crap out of a slick corporate hit ad

Perhaps the better art of political advertising is the new showdown.

[Overseas]

7. Corps already use the "Citizens Against Bad Stuff" campaigns now.

They do tons of that stuff now, before the new Supreme Curt ruling, see Astroturfing.

Corporations have had to do that because of limits on their spending to influence our politics and government.


The new ruling removed those pesky limits imposed on corporate spending on political campaigning and lobbying. Said money equals free speech and conglomerations of people with billions of their conglomerated wealth should have the same freedom of speech as an individual American like me.

[Orangepeel]

8. other than strengthening the bullshit idea of corporate personhood, the removal of time restrictions

is the worst thing about this, IMO

Corporations already spend as much money as they want to on political advertising through the nonconnected PAC ads. That's one of the main things wrong with the country now. Can it get worse? Possibly, but I agree with you that corporations are going to want to continue to hide their support, which is what they do now anyway.

A movie like the "Hillary" one at the center of the case isn't new either. Sinclair Broadcasting aired that anti-Kerry "documentary" right before the 2004 election. "Real" television stations are only going to sell so much space for political messages (they do have other companies that want to buy ads) and those with an agenda are going to do what they have been doing.

I DO want much stronger disclaimer info. If something like that Hillary movie airs, it should have "Paid Political Advertisement Paid for by _____________" on the screen in visible letters at all times and the statement should be made out load multiple times throughout the broadcast.

[zulchzulu]

9. Good point

It would be at least something to have to have an intro 5 second pre-ad placement that warns the viewer they are about to view an ad sponsored by a group/corporation/entity. Much like you have when an infomercial starts out...

There is a way to make it an ineffective way to message attack ads, if only with PSAs that warn people (amusingly) how political hit ads are made.

And yes, there should be a watermark or some consistent identity that is throughout an ad.