A kick in the ads

Wise people have often joked that we market our politicians like we market soda: it's all about image and which one leaves the best taste in your mouth. People say the inundation of advertising from the two major political parties, telling you which one is better, is strikingly similar to the inundation from the two soda giants. \nIt's an astute and funny observation, even if it's not completely true that they can be marketed the same.\nI am, of course, referring here to the fact that Pepsi -- or maybe not Pepsi, but rather an "independent" group with no ties to Pepsico Inc., like Shasta or RC Cola -- cannot launch an ad against the Coca-Cola Company claiming that when Coke fought in the Vietnam War, Coke did not sustain enemy fire when it won its bronze star for valor and its third Purple Heart, when all official government documentation seems to suggest much differently, and therefore is unfit to be your soda-in-chief.\nPepsi could not do this because the claim is manufactured and false, and we have rules in this country governing the truth of commercial advertising. The Federal Trade Commission, overseeing such matters, prohibits individuals or businesses from making false or misleading advertising claims.\nThe FTC can act accordingly to enforce rules and levy punishments on false, misleading or deceptive advertising for commercials. The commission says that a representation, an omission or a practice is defined deceptive if it is likely to "mislead consumers and affect consumers' behavior or decisions about the product or service."\nIn political campaigns, believe it or not, there are no such truth-in-advertising rules for political commercials. Merely substituting "voter" for "consumer" and "candidate" for "product" in the FTC's definition of deceptive -- ads which are likely to mislead voters and affect voters' behaviors or decisions about the candidate -- seems like it'd be a common-sense law.\nBut it isn't. Politicians can exaggerate, omit, misrepresent, deceive and lie freely in ads. And in fact, the Federal Communications Act actually requires broadcasters who run political ads to run them uncensored, even if the broadcaster believes it's a flat-out lie.\nWhat's the difference between political ads and product ads? There's an inherent problem in the system when one form of dishonest advertising (false or misleading advertising in the cola wars) is deemed wrong, but another, with much more dire stakes (false or misleading advertising for a presidential election), should be protected as free speech.\nThe whole thing may get dicey when placed under the First Amendment microscope, but we have laws that restrict a person's right to free speech when it comes to lies and already have laws against false and misleading advertising.\nWe have a political tradition in this country that allows voters to judge for themselves the truthfulness and accuracy of campaign commercials. Voters, though, rely heavily on the media to make these judgments. Since 1992, (after the particularly bloody 1988 election) there have been a number of media outlets that analyze and scrutinize the truthfulness and accuracy of political advertising. Many of these lies could be cut off at the pass. Politicians won't renounce them, and by the time the media reveals them to be untruths, the intended political damage is done. \nThe Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act was supposed to clean up this stuff. It didn't; it just requires candidates to say they "approved this message" on their commercials.\nPolitical commercials should be held to the same standards as those from Pepsi and Coke. Banning the lies and deception from political advertisements is not something done in the name of censorship; it's something done in the name of citizenship.