Deceptiveness in campaign ads

[KingsGambit]

One particular campaign ad for my state's governor race caught my attention this evening. With emotional, dramatic music and lighting and the shadow of a crying woman, the ad charged that one candidate voted to make rape victims pay for their own rape kits.

This struck me as something where there had to be more to the story, and there was. It turns out that this candidate had voted against a bill where one of the riders banned ever charging women for their own rape kits, but another part of the bill made it easier to allow convicted murderers out on parole. This second part was why he voted against it.

In my opinion, the charge that he actually voted to make women pay for their own rape kits is slanderous (especially because the bill didn't say women had to pay, it just banned local police departments for charging for them). What recourse, if any, should there be for inaccurate and defamatory ads?

[Mountain Man]

The problem is that ads like this aren't technically lying, so there's not much anybody can do without overreaching legislation that could potentially do more harm than good. This leaves it up to the competing campaign to set the record straight.

I think the real issue is that we apparently have a lot of voters in this country who make their decision based on ads like this that any reasonable person would know aren't telling the whole story. It's where the term "low-information voter" originated.

[Bill the Cat]

That is the reason riders need to be banned. Each law should cover its own subject.

[Carrikature]

That is the reason riders need to be banned. Each law should cover its own subject.

I suspect politicians don't want to do that because they know they'll never get (most of) their pet projects passed.

[KingsGambit]

I saw another campaign ad this morning that was completely misleading but legally couldn't be proved wrong.

In the Republican primary here (in a very conservative area), there are three candidates. The moderate one of the three is the incumbent. He sent out an ad accusing the conservative candidate of being a "California liberal" because she moved here from California several years ago, and it said she "doesn't understand Midwestern values". This lady is actually extremely conservative, more conservative than she is. But "liberal" isn't something with a legal definition so you can't really prove what he said wrong. It was a slimy ad. Using his logic, Ronald Reagan would have been a liberal too because he was from California.

(I don't know how long Rochelle has been here, but she lives on one of my main mail routes and I know she's been here since I started running it about three years ago so it's not like she just moved here yesterday.)

[NorrinRadd]

I suspect politicians don't want to do that because they know they'll never get (most of) their pet projects passed.

Right. Plus those odious things are part of the larger political negotiating process, which I guess is at least somewhat related to what you said.

It's also why there will never be a lline-item veto power.