I've been wondering how the Bush campaign was going to deal with one of sticking points in the new McCain/Feingold campaign finance law. Now, with Bush's first ads... I know.
When Howard Dean made the initial media buy for '04 presidential election earlier this summer a great many political junkies and media folk were confused with what seemed to be an awkward ending to the ad: Howard Dean appeared on camera and related the fact that he'd "approved this message". I remember seeing more than one reporter question just what the hell the Dean people were thinking.
As we all now know, the Dean campaign was merely complying with a little known provision of the new McCain/Feingold campaign finance law. Candidates for president are now required to "sign" every political ad produced with campaign coffers by proactively endorsing the message of the ad with their voice and image.
We've all become accustomed as the other Democratic campaigns have followed in Howard Dean's footsteps and endorsed their ads using the Dean standard: at the end of the ad the candidate appears live and personally endorses the message of the ad.
It has been reported that Republican officials with the Bush campaign have been fretting over this new requirement and what it means for the tone of the upcoming campaign. This requirement was intended to hold the candidates personally responsible for the message of their campaigns.
This is definately not what the Bush campaign would prefer.
The Bushes have long adopted the idea that the campaign apparatus should engage wholeheartedly in attacking their opponents using the most blatant and disgusting smears imaginable, but that the actual candidate should try to appear "above the fray" as much as possible. Deferring to subordinates to do the dirty work. This new requirement makes that much more difficult at least with official campaign ads.
Which leads me to Bushes new ads. If you haven't had a look, please go and see. When the ads begin an image of Bush walking towards the camera appears and you hear a reluctant voice over of Bush giving the endorsement, "I approve this message." Then the ad fades out and back in and the meat of the ad begins.
Now, Bushes new ads are not attack ads, but they are clearly sending a message about how they intend to try and skirt the intent of the new law, however it is unclear to me if they are also skirting the letter. The campaign intends to put Bushes voice over up front before the actual ad begins. Further, they intend to only provide disconnected audio/video instead of letting the candidate appear before the camera and give the endorsement.
The inescapable conclusion? They want to disconnect Bush as much as possible by making him appear in the beginning instead of at the end when we've seen exactly what Bush is endorsing. Further, by providing only a voice over they are hoping to distance Bush even further from the ads. Then when the real attack ads begin Bush can employ this trick to distance himself.
Go watch the ads. I think it works to a certain extent. By the time the ads are done the endorsement no longer remains with the viewer. Now, are they breaking the letter as well as the spirit of the law? Bonus brownies to anyone that can answer that question.