I've been phonebanking from my home for the last couple of days and though I live in California, the areas I am calling are Ohio and Colorado. The voters in both states are being inundated with campaign phone calls, which may be why I'm getting so many of answering machines.
As a guess, I would say I've connected with only 20% of the voters on my lists. Of those I have spoken to, most have not yet voted but are enthusiastically supporting Obama. Even the few McCain supporters I've spoken to have been friendly.
During my last round of calls, I spoke with a lady in Colorado who answered my call only because I was a real person on the other end of the line. You see, she's upset with the number of robocalls coming in from the McCain campaign and is disturbed and offended by ugly tone and content. She's offended because these calls come into her Christian home especially during the dinner hour and she, her husband and two teenage children are forced to eat their family meal while listening to the deceitful accusations and smears spewing from the answering machine.
Most of us work hard to raise our children to be decent, caring people and protect them as best we can from the darker side of human nature. Is John McCain so desperate and lacking substance that his campaign strategy is to toss garbage into the streets and homes of decent people? Sadly, yes.
This Colorado mother said she doesn't recall a more vicious campaign than John McCain and she's frustrated because she doesn't know how to stop the calls from coming or even who to call to complain. She seemed upset enough that I didn't ask her for any specifics and I didn't want to insult her by asking her to repeat them. Unplugging her phone wasn't possible-not with two teenagers running around on their own, but her vulnerability and impotence to stop it leads me to the wonder why the Truth in Advertising laws don't apply to elections.
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
* Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
* Advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
* Advertisements cannot be unfair.
What makes an advertisement deceptive?
According to the FTC's Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement - or omits information - that:
* Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances; and
* Is "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
What makes an advertisement unfair?
According to the Federal Trade Commission Act and the FTC's Unfairness Policy Statement, an ad or business practice is unfair if:
* it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and
* it is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers.
How does the FTC determine if an ad is deceptive?
A typical inquiry follows these steps:
*The FTC looks at the ad from the point of view of the "reasonable consumer" - the typical person looking at the ad. Rather than focusing on certain words, the FTC looks at the ad in context - words, phrases, and pictures to determine what it conveys to consumers.
*The FTC looks at both "express" and "implied" claims. An express claim is literally made in the ad. Under the law, advertisers must have proof to back up express and implied claims that consumers take from an ad.
*The FTC looks at what the ad does not say - that is, if the failure to include information leaves consumers with a misimpression about the product.
*The FTC looks at whether the claim would be "material" - that is, important to a consumer's decision to buy or use the product.
* The FTC looks at whether the advertiser has sufficient evidence to support the claims in the ad. The law requires that advertisers have proof before the ad runs.
What kind of evidence must a company have to support the claims in its ads?
Before a company runs an ad, it has to have a "reasonable basis" for the claims. A "reasonable basis" means objective evidence that supports the claim. The kind of evidence depends on the claim. At a minimum, an advertiser must have the level of evidence that it says it has.
Is it more important to protect us from a toothpaste that doesn't really whiten our teeth as promised or a potential US president who shields his ineptness behind ugly lies about his opponent?
Obama pals around with terrorists.
Or how about a misleading ad for Proposition?
Gay marriage will be taught in public schools if Prop. 8 fails.
I know there's nothing we can do about opinions, but can't we find some way to afford the public some protection from outright lies?