With Campaign 2006 over, all except for some absentee ballot counting and a lot of finger pointing, it isn't too soon to look at some changes that need to be made in the campaign process. This year's raucous and, at times, just downright mean campaign season, shows at least one area where changes need to be made.
There is much that is good in the McCain/Feingold Campaign Reform Legislation, passed in 2002, that impacts candidates for federal office, especially for Congress. McCain/Feingold removed some of the unregulated cash, known as “soft money,” from politics and made candidates more responsible for their advertisements with the stand by your ad provisions. But, as with many laws, there are unintended consequences, as seen with some of the $2.6 billion spent on political ads this year.
The most glaring consequence may have been the saturation of the airwaves with shameless distortions of a candidate's record. The high profile race that yesterday pitted Oneida County District Attorney Michael Arcuri against State Sen. Raymond Meier may have been the best example of things going awry.
The horrendous negativity unleashed in this race by the national party organizations generated coverage from the Boston Globe to Sunday's “Meet the Press” and even comedian Bill Maher's weekly show on HBO.
In one ad, Democrat Arcuri was portrayed as deliberately calling a sex line. In a mailer, Republican Meier was portrayed as a wildly spending drunken sailor. Both local campaigns may have agreed on how misleading these pieces were, but used the excuse that they couldn't do anything, because Federal Election Law said that they couldn't have a say on the content, nor could they block them. They were given, in essence, through legislation, the cover of being able to shrug their shoulders and deny having their fingerprints all over the work of their party's national organizations. In short, deniability by federal law.
While there are legitimate concerns on whether curbing or banning these types of ads is limiting free speech, there can be less debate over the need for candidates to take responsibility for the work of these national campaign affiliates, especially since they also often receive direct cash outlays, in many cases, from their national parties that are connected to these affiliates.
If a candidate wants to take money from their National Committees they need to take responsibility for the ads and mailings of their affiliates, such as their respective Congressional Campaign Committees (who were responsible, it seems, for the lion's share of the nastiest campaign commercials that aired and mailers that were sent).
While there may be (and some believe there may not have been) a separation between these national party affiliates out of Washington and what local campaigns do within a given congressional district, there is a need to make certain that candidates who run for office have the ability to either take responsibility for the message if they agree with it, or denounce it, if they don't, resulting in the ads being pulled.
Cosentino is a former mayor of Auburn and can be e-mailed at cozguytho@aol.com
The most glaring consequence may have been the saturation of the airwaves with shameless distortions of a candidate's record. The high profile race that yesterday pitted Oneida County District Attorney Michael Arcuri against State Sen. Raymond Meier may have been the best example of things going awry.
The horrendous negativity unleashed in this race by the national party organizations generated coverage from the Boston Globe to Sunday's “Meet the Press” and even comedian Bill Maher's weekly show on HBO.
In one ad, Democrat Arcuri was portrayed as deliberately calling a sex line. In a mailer, Republican Meier was portrayed as a wildly spending drunken sailor. Both local campaigns may have agreed on how misleading these pieces were, but used the excuse that they couldn't do anything, because Federal Election Law said that they couldn't have a say on the content, nor could they block them. They were given, in essence, through legislation, the cover of being able to shrug their shoulders and deny having their fingerprints all over the work of their party's national organizations. In short, deniability by federal law.
While there are legitimate concerns on whether curbing or banning these types of ads is limiting free speech, there can be less debate over the need for candidates to take responsibility for the work of these national campaign affiliates, especially since they also often receive direct cash outlays, in many cases, from their national parties that are connected to these affiliates.
If a candidate wants to take money from their National Committees they need to take responsibility for the ads and mailings of their affiliates, such as their respective Congressional Campaign Committees (who were responsible, it seems, for the lion's share of the nastiest campaign commercials that aired and mailers that were sent).
While there may be (and some believe there may not have been) a separation between these national party affiliates out of Washington and what local campaigns do within a given congressional district, there is a need to make certain that candidates who run for office have the ability to either take responsibility for the message if they agree with it, or denounce it, if they don't, resulting in the ads being pulled.
Cosentino is a former mayor of Auburn and can be e-mailed at cozguytho@aol.com
