I find myself in the awkward position–particularly during tough economic times–of criticizing a policy that is significantly increasing the number of commercials being made. It’s counter to numerous stands we have taken over the years to stimulate spotmaking and branded content opportunities as well as to ensure the health of the production community at large.
But in this case, more is less when it comes to the Supreme Court decision back in January to overturn campaign finance laws, thus allowing corporations, unions and other groups to spend on political campaign ads without having to disclose who and where the funding comes from. This decision has opened the commercial and media expenditure floodgates.
Elected officials from five states find the major ramping up of campaign spending to be disconcerting and have formed the Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending to combat it.
The coalition is facing an uphill battle and its credibility isn’t helped by the fact that four of its organizers are Democrats–Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, Pennsylvania Treasurer Rob McCord, North Carolina Treasurer Janet Cowell, and New York Comptroller Tom DiNapoli. The fifth founding member is L.A. Controller Wendy Gruehl, whose office is nonpartisan.
The Democratic bent to the coalition stirs skepticism in that Democrats are currently being targeted by the lion’s share of this new breed of political ad spending. However, in a different election cycle–given the spending power of unions which are traditionally supporters of the Democratic Party–the Republicans could find themselves more on the receiving end at some point down the road.
Indeed there’s a price to pay for the increased revenue being funneled into media and advertising industry coffers. For one, this influx of business comes largely from mudslinging messages with special interests gaining additional influence peddling power. This often negative advertising marked by character assassination and distortion of the truth isn’t good for the country or, in our corner of the world, the reputation of the ad business which comes off as generating expedient, manipulative communication.
Yet while I don’t like this brand of advertising, I can live with it. After all, that’s freedom of speech.
What pushes me against it, though, is that we aren’t told who’s speaking. If the special interests were clearly identified with full public disclosure, I’d defend the right of those speaking even though they are often contributing to what I personally regard as a continued unhealthy, disingenuous polarization of our society.
In mainstream advertising, the public knows who’s behind an ad and can judge those brands and their messages accordingly, with people making their buying decisions as they see fit. All I ask is the same for political advertising.
In one of the initial installments of our “Then, Now and Looking Ahead” series, Rich Silverstein, co-chairman/creative director of Goodby, Silverstein & Partners, San Francisco, said on the “now” and “looking ahead” fronts vis a vis the Supreme Court verdict, “I know it means more money for the advertising industry but that’s not the way we should elect people or deal with issues.”
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt Reach Divorce Settlement After 8 Years
Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have reached a divorce settlement, ending one of the longest and most contentious divorces in Hollywood history but not every legal issue between the two.
Jolie and Pitt signed off on a default declaration filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday, saying they have entered into a written agreement on their marital and property rights. The settlement was first reported by People magazine.
"More than eight years ago, Angelina filed for divorce from Mr. Pitt," Jolie's attorney, James Simon, said in a statement. "She and the children left all of the properties they had shared with Mr. Pitt, and since that time she has focused on finding peace and healing for their family. This is just one part of a long ongoing process that started eight years ago. Frankly, Angelina is exhausted, but she is relieved this one part is over."
The filing says they give up the right to any future spousal financial support, but gives no other details. A judge will need to sign off on the agreement. An email late Monday night to Pitt's attorney seeking comment was not immediately answered.
Jolie, 49, and Pitt, 61, were among Hollywood's most prominent pairings for 12 years, two of them as a married couple. The Oscar winners have six children together.
Jolie filed for divorce in 2016, after a private jet flight from Europe during which she said Pitt physically abused her and their children. The FBI and child services officials investigated Pitt's actions on the flight. Two months later, the FBI released a statement saying it would not investigate further, and the U.S. attorney did not bring charges.
A heavily redacted FBI report obtained by The Associated Press in 2022 said that an agent provided a probable cause... Read More