Ad attacks Dean over his foreign policy
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 12-19-2003 - 11:39am |
The last paragraph bothers me...IMHO, ALL contributors should be a matter of public record and available immediately. Other than that, when will politicians (and their staffs) learn that many voters are turned off completely by the negative mud-slinging name-calling ads?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/153152_attackads19.html
Ad attacks Dean over his foreign policy
Independent sponsor behind it, more such groups emerging
Friday, December 19, 2003
By JULIA MALONE
COX NEWS SERVICE
WASHINGTON -- An attack ad that uses the face of Osama bin Laden to raise doubts about presidential candidate Howard Dean's national security credentials will be off the air by week's end.
The ad's sponsors, an obscure Ohio-based Democratic group known as Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values, announced yesterday that the 30-second spot will be put on hold, at least until after the Christmas holidays.
"The buy for these ads has ended," said spokesman Robert Gibbs. He said the group would "reassess" the project at the end of the year.
The ad, in which ominous background music plays as the narrator intones darkly that front-running Democrat Dean "cannot compete with George Bush on foreign policy," has aired in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
By law, the spot must go off the air soon in those early primary states. A federal campaign finance statute forbids such privately sponsored ads within 30 days of a primary. Iowa caucus voting begins Jan. 19.
But the first controversial independent ad of the presidential campaign is unlikely to be the last under the new far-reaching campaign finance law, which has just been upheld by the Supreme Court.
With the national parties forbidden from accepting the unlimited "soft money" donations that once paid for their multimillion dollar television ad campaigns, the 2004 election is a "window of opportunity to explore the outer reaches" of using independent groups to serve the same purpose, said Frances Hill, a tax law professor who specializes in tax-exempt political groups at the University of Miami.
Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values, formed in November, is among dozens of new tax-exempt groups that can accept large donations and run independent political campaigns, so long as they do not coordinate with candidates or parties.
Its officers and some of its labor union backers have links to Richard Gephardt, the Missouri congressman who is running a do-or-die race against Dean in Iowa.
The group's president, Ed Feighan, a Democrat who once represented Cleveland in Congress, has donated $2,000 to the Gephardt campaign, and its treasurer, David Jones, has been a Gephardt fund-raiser in the past.
Gibbs insisted that the group "is not affiliated with any other campaign or candidate."
"We intended to bring about a discussion in this process like foreign policy experience," he said. "I would certainly believe that that's been accomplished."
The Dean campaign has condemned the attack ad as "despicable" and called on his rival Democrats to join in a demand to pull the ad off the airwaves.
Gephardt has told reporters that he had no knowledge of the anti-Dean ad and asked the sponsors to reveal their contributors.
But this group and dozens of others that are forming to participate in the 2004 campaign are not required to disclose their donors until the end of January, after the votes have been cast in the early primary contests.
© 1998-2003 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
cl-nwtreehugger
Co-cl: In The News http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/listsf.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&nav=start
Community Leader - Sports Talk http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/listsf.asp?webtag=iv-elsportstalk&nav=start

cl-Libraone
Renee
It's forcing both parties to come up with ever more create ways to get around the laws and search even harder for loopholes to expoloit which usually aren't as transparent as the more straightforward money raising strategies they are replacing.
Both parties will now be EXTREMELY reluctant to put a bandaid on any singualar issue. I'm not looking for any change. I don't think enough people will play ball unless the campaign finance reform is 'reformed,' which in reality will mean starting over from scratch.
I'd like to see nearly all restrictions lifted, but a completely transparent system implemented so we would all know when the $$ for candidates & special interests come from. The only one I can think of at the moment that I think is legitimate is to restrict fund raising to US citizens & residents.
Renee
This isn't an administrative issue. It's being administered exactly as it was written--no need for 3rd party transparency, restrict soft money, which is killing Democrats, and prevent groups from running issue ads 3 months prior to elections.
Oooohhh...sorrrry...used wrong word...in a rush to get stuff done.
I'll have to disagree with all of these. I think a candidate is viable if voters believe enough in him or her that they are willing to put their $$$ where their mouth is. Candidate who raise more $$$ have more support and their campaign's influence should reflect that. I certainly wouldn't want all 128 candidates who ran for gov. of CA to have the same funding & media access.
I think candidates should be able to spend whatever they can afford to. If someone wants to run a $500,000,000 campaign, I say go to it, but everyone should know where the dough came from. If he was bought by the Suaudi govt., the Orangization to Save Golden Eagles from Windmill Farms, Martha Stewart Omnimedia, or his wife, voters will take that into consideration when casting their votes.
Renee