Weekly Opinion Editorial
Caveat Suffragator
by Steve Fair
In
a free market capitalist economic system, supply and demand rules. Individuals or companies develop and price products
to appeal to a market. If the demand is
high, the price increases. If demand is
low, the price decreases. The political
system is much the same way- candidates create an image that will appeal to
their market- the voters. It doesn’t necessarily
have to be reality based. Pragmatic
candidates view values and convictions secondary to getting votes and winning. Making false claims about themselves or their
opponent is acceptable, but that wouldn’t work if a political candidate were a
can of green beans.
The Federal Trade Commission requires that
all advertisements must be truthful, fair and free of misleading
representation. All claims in advertising must be substantiated with solid
proof. The Federal Trade Commission has
a Deception Policy Statement that describes an advertisement as deceptive if a
misleading feature of the ad sways a consumer into purchasing or using the
product or service. This definition also applies to information that is
deliberately omitted or withheld from the consumer that affects purchase
decisions. To determine if an ad is deceptive, the FTC considers both direct
and implied claims in the context of the ad.
That is why you don’t see as many
‘comparison claims’ on consumer products that you saw in decades past. Exaggerating the features of your product
while downplaying the competition’s features became next to impossible to prove,
so most consumer product companies abandoned the old ‘we’re better than brand x’
strategy. But the strategy is alive and
well in politics.
In a study conducted by the Washington
Examiner they found that 90% of the political ads in the 2016 presidential
general election were attacking the opponent, not extolling the virtues of the
candidate. Their study found that both
Trump and Clinton ads were of the attack variety. Both
campaigns were equally guilty. They
spent most of their time and money trying to convince voters their opponent was
bad and therefore by default they were good.
Sadly, those same tactics have wormed their way down to local
politics. Candidates for state
legislature and county offices often succumb to ‘comparison’ campaigning
pieces, attacking or downright lying about their opponent’s positions. They often include in the same piece, a
family picture and a resume of their sainthood.
It’s hypocritical and should be illegal.
If the FTC were in charge of campaign claims, a large percentage of
politicos would be paying fines for misleading advertising.
Caveat emptor is a Latin
term that means ‘let the buyer beware.” It means that goods are sold ‘as is’
and the buyer assumes the product may fail to meet expectations or have
defects. In politics it should be Caveat
suffragator, Latin for ‘let the voter beware.” When elected officials lie to win, is it no
wonder, voters are often disappointed when they fail to meet expectations? The election claims of candidates should at
least be as truthful as the claims of ramen noodles.
No comments:
Post a Comment