via Mark Kleiman, I came across this amazing ad, about the most powerful anti-Bush ad I've ever seen. If you wanted to find a place to send some money, I think the group that made this ad, a veterans' group called Operation Truth, would be a good candidate.
A couple of related points: First, this is a good example of a point I've made often about campaign finance reform. This is an ad that does not say one word about the election, does not mention a candidate by name, a party, does not mention the administration or Congress. Nothing. It's entirely a statement of facts about the speakers experience in Iraq. And yet, it is a profoundly effective political ad. It's pretty hard to imagine watching it and then going out and voting for Bush. The big regulation in the McCain-Feingold law is the requirement to use hard money for any ad that mentions a candidate in the sixty days before a general election. But, as this ad shows, there are plenty of circumstances under which a pure issue ad can have an electoral impact. That probably becomes even more true as more and more effective ads work by indirection and allusion rather than the hit-you-on-the-head approach of old-fashioned advertising.
Should such ads be regulated? I can't imagine that they could be or should be. It would require some outside party to make a very subjective judgment that one ad is intended to influence the election while another was simply trying to make a point about the war. This ad is sponsored by a c(4) non-profit -- that is, contributions to it are not tax deductible but are not limited either, and the group can engage in a limited amount of electioneering if that's not it's primary purpose. This ad could almost have been run by a 501(c)3 non-profit (which is to say, tax-deductible contributions), although that would be legally daring. The 30-day/60-day rule is important and it can limit many of the extremely vicious soft-money attack ads that came up in the past few cycles. But there are still many other things that will influence an election outcome.
The other thing about this group is that they have former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura as an advisory board member, and also an ad featuring Ventura, which mostly criticizes the media. It seems Ventura has been very critical of the use of National Guard in Iraq and other aspects. Could he be used more? Wouldn't that have a huge impact in Minnesota, which I think is considered the state most at risk of going blue-to-red this year?
As a Minnesotan I have my doubts that anything Jesse does will carry much weight here. In his four years a gov. Jesse showed his interest was EXCLUSIVELY Jesse.
Virtually every piece of legislation he stood for effected him, if it didn't he wasn't interested. Besides he's so incredibly thin skinned even a letter to the editor could be used to set him off and derail or destroy any strategy he was being used in.
Posted by: fubarsnafu | 10/14/2004 at 05:15 PM
I'm a little confused about the difference between a c(4) and a 527. As a non-citizen, can I donate to them?
Posted by: Andy | 10/14/2004 at 08:08 PM
Actually, Wisconsin's the state most at risk.
As for Jesse, as noted, he might be more effective in any other state. Imagine him opposing Arnold, for example, in an ad campaign.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden | 10/15/2004 at 12:05 AM
Another problem with using Ventura at this point: I believe he has publicly announced that he is not voting for anyone -- or either of the major candidates -- for president this year, because in his view there is no one worthwhile voting for, or something like that. How's that for civic-mindedness?
Posted by: Jeff L. | 10/15/2004 at 12:29 AM
I had the same reaction to this ad as you. It hits you like a punch in the solar plexus. But, uh, say, Mark, aren't you reasonably well acquainted with someone who has the kind of money to get this ad on the air?
Posted by: jl | 10/15/2004 at 09:01 AM
As a resident of MN, I agree with Fubarsnafu. Minnesotans are mostly tired of Jesse's act.
Posted by: Jon | 10/15/2004 at 10:50 AM
My sense is with the mood of the electorate this is as much a pro Bush ad as anything: rally round the flag, rally round our troops.
That is probably a weird opinion but I believe that the reactions of the undecided voter are not 'rational' in the way liberals think about politics.
Fear, war, terrorism, the military identifies in the voter's mind with Republicans, not Democrats.
Posted by: john | 10/18/2004 at 11:26 AM
The American public believes George Bush can fight the war on terror more effectively than his challenger. The more the story is about the war, the more Dubya benefits.
Liberals who were anti-war to start with find the no WMD argument compelling. The rest of us don't.
Posted by: Reason | 10/22/2004 at 02:15 AM
I don't care about bush or kerry. There's both full of BS, it's just a matter of which one is full of it the most.
Posted by: Joe | 10/28/2004 at 02:41 PM
Another problem with using Ventura at this point: I believe he has publicly announced that he is not voting for anyone -- or either of the major candidates -- for president this year, because in his view there is no one worthwhile voting for, or something like that. How's that for civic-mindedness?
http://medlem.jubii.dk/blagues/
http://medlem.jubii.dk/humour/
http://medlem.jubii.dk/partitions/
http://medlem.jubii.dk/recettes/
http://medlem.jubii.dk/tatouages/
http://medlem.jubii.dk/ecransdeveille/
http://medlem.jubii.dk/cartespostales/
http://medlem.jubii.dk/horoscope/
Posted by: gorke | 03/29/2005 at 01:32 PM
A couple of related points: First, this is a good example of a point I've made often about campaign finance reform. This is an ad that does not say one word about the election, does not mention a candidate by name, a party, does not mention the administration or Congress. Nothing. It's entirely a statement of facts about the speakers experience in Iraq. And yet, it is a profoundly effective political ad. It's pretty hard to imagine watching it and then going out and voting for Bush. The big regulation in the McCain-Feingold law is the requirement to use hard money for any ad that mentions a candidate in the sixty days before a general election. But, as this ad shows, there are plenty of circumstances under which a pure issue ad can have an electoral impact. That probably becomes even more true as more and more effective ads work by indirection and allusion rather than the hit-you-on-the-head approach of old-fashioned advertising.
Posted by: brown stein | 08/27/2005 at 11:17 PM
The other thing about this group is that they have former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura as an advisory board member, and also an ad featuring Ventura, which mostly criticizes the media. It seems Ventura has been very critical of the use of National Guard in Iraq and other aspects. Could he be used more? Wouldn't that have a huge impact in Minnesota, which I think is considered the state most at risk of going blue-to-red this year?
Posted by: jeani | 08/28/2005 at 03:58 AM
The other thing about this group is that they have former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura as an advisory board member, and also an ad featuring Ventura, which mostly criticizes the media. It seems Ventura has been very critical of the use of National Guard in Iraq and other aspects. Could he be used more? Wouldn't that have a huge impact in Minnesota, which I think is considered the state most at risk of going blue-to-red this year?
Posted by: calra | 08/31/2005 at 07:13 PM
A couple of related points: First, this is a good example of a point I've made often about campaign finance reform. This is an ad that does not say one word about the election, does not mention a candidate by name, a party, does not mention the administration or Congress. Nothing. It's entirely a statement of facts about the speakers experience in Iraq. And yet, it is a profoundly effective political ad. It's pretty hard to imagine watching it and then going out and voting for Bush. The big regulation in the McCain-Feingold law is the requirement to use hard money for any ad that mentions a candidate in the sixty days before a general election. But, as this ad shows, there are plenty of circumstances under which a pure issue ad can have an electoral impact. That probably becomes even more true as more and more effective ads work by indirection and allusion rather than the hit-you-on-the-head approach of old-fashioned advertising.
Posted by: maria | 09/02/2005 at 12:11 AM
Great job my friend! i'll come back...
Posted by: Telecharger MSN | 09/07/2005 at 04:54 PM
just like that...
Posted by: BoobSquad | 09/08/2005 at 02:54 AM
i really like what you said...
Assparade Boobsquad
Baitbus Bangbus
Posted by: Assparade | 09/16/2005 at 10:52 AM
The other thing about this group is that they have former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura as an advisory board member, and also an ad featuring Ventura, which mostly criticizes the media. It seems Ventura has been very critical of the use of National Guard in Iraq and other aspects. Could he be used more? Wouldn't that have a huge impact in Minnesota, which I think is considered the state most at risk of going blue-to-red this year?
Posted by: TugJobs | 09/20/2005 at 02:45 PM
he other thing about this group is that they have former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura as an advisory board member, and also an ad featuring Ventura, which mostly criticizes the media. It seems Ventura has been very critical of the use of National Guard in Iraq and other aspects. Could he be used more? Wouldn't that have a huge impact in Minnesota, which I think is considered the state most at risk of going blue-to-red this year?
Posted by: Assparade | 09/21/2005 at 02:04 AM
nice...
Posted by: Bangbus | 10/07/2005 at 01:21 AM
http://www.hugechoiceof.com/
Posted by: account | 05/06/2007 at 02:54 PM
http://www.anzwers.net/hot/nicesite/
Posted by: nice | 08/13/2007 at 02:03 PM
http://frauen-porno.oral-teeny.com/
Posted by: porno | 08/29/2007 at 01:36 PM
http://www2.xfreehosting.com/teen/nudefotos/
Posted by: fotos | 09/12/2007 at 03:45 PM