Voter Protection

Playing political hardball and lying are different acts. One is legitimate while the other is morally reprehensible. They need to be treated differently.

We tolerate attack ads that offer claims which are supported by historically documented facts. If McCain puts out an ad that calls attention to the fact that Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq began before Obama was voting on national security issues, we voters should and would accept it as a legitimate political maneuver. Some may call such an ad "negative" and encourage McCain to offer reasons why we should vote for him rather than reasons not to vote for his opponent, but most voters would simply appreciate being made aware of the facts.

What reasonable citizens will never accept is being lied to. Whether its a quote taken out of context, the manipulation of historical information, or just a flat out lie with no factual basis, reasonable Americans will not tolerate it (See: Reactions of many Republicans and Independents to the revelations that at least two of McCain's recent ads propagate false information).

Unfortunately, it is difficult for the average American to discriminate between the truthful statements and the lies he is fed by our media. This is why I would support the creation of an independent agency which would hold veto power over the content of proposed political advertisements. The agency could also impose monetary penalties on the campaign which attempted to spread false claims. We don't let corporations propagate falsehoods over the radio or television, why do we let politicians? A system of voter protection is desperately needed.

The agency would function like a front-end FactCheck.org. The content of the ad would be reviewed for factual accuracy and if it passed scrutiny, would be aired at the time chosen by its creators. If the ad contained content which was not supported by historical documentation, it would not be aired and the submitting campaign could be subjected to monetary penalties.

Lincoln Chafee and others in the Senate have become increasingly vocal about the 'truth deficit' in our federal politics. In my opinion, as long as Carl Rove's proteges are running the campaigns of Presidential candidates we will not see real reform in this area. An independent body must be created to hold campaigns accountable for the messages they spread.

Candidates simply can't be given carte blanche during election time. They must act within the bounds of history and a version of reality that is based on hard facts. No candidate should have to decide between running an ethical campaign and running a winning campaign that costs him his integrity.


McCain on TheView defending his manipulation of Obama's use of the common phrase "lipstick on a pig" for political gain:

-

"Pro-truth" Youtube montage showing a plethora of false claims used by the McCain camp in 2008: