Truth in political advertising?

Over 40 years ago, advertisers became accountable for their product's claims when the Supreme Court held Colgate-Palmolive stretched the truth about Rapid-shave’s capabilities. The Lanham act essentially states that advertisers can’t lie, and if they make claims, they better have the facts to prove it. Now on the eve of perhaps the most critical national election of the Union, I come to learn that political advertisements are not subject to the same tests of truth. While it’s easy to understand that this loophole is the design of politicians, has it really given candidates a persuasive edge, or has it lowered the overall effectiveness of political advertising?

Eight years ago, after winning the republican primary against George Bush, John McCain seemed poised to win the second primary contest in North Carolina. Karl Rove worked with pollsters to spread a rumor of McCain fathering an illegitimate black child. The tactic seemed to work. Bush won that primary and went on to become the republican presidential nominee. When confronting Senator John Kerry, Rove dug back into his bag of tricks and with the help of a 527 organization called, swift boat vets and POWs for truth, they mounted a smear campaign discrediting the senator’s military record. Again, Bush went on to win the Presidency. There are countless other political stories where innuendo is used to discredit an opponent: Willie Horton and Michael Dukakis, Governor Anne Richards and alcoholism and the progenitor of negative campaigning, Richard Nixon and Jerry Voorhis. These political tricks have been perpetrated in print and electronic media as well as in leading polls, but people seem to take them in stride. It seems people have come to accept shenanigans from political candidates, or have they?

Since political innuendo and lies have existed as long as politics, one might assume that people have come to expect the lies and exaggerations and have learned to filter it out or disregard it entirely. But American history shows how the founders exaggerated events of the Boston Massacre, and much is written about the innuendo surrounding President Lincoln and his family. As Lincoln himself said, some people are gullible all the time and some can be duped only some of the time. As a result, these lies have led the country to some serious errors of judgment with equally serious consequences.

We’re fortunate that in our time we have the means to look for the real truth that lies in politician’s words. Our wired world lets journalists and individuals root out the facts of an issue, determine the truth and if they’re inclined, post it on the internet for others to see. The problem is that it takes lots of work and may itself sometimes be incorrect. So in the end, what are people supposed to do to learn the truth of elected officials? For certain, they won’t be looking to political ads for the answers.