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.”
Trump Asks Supreme Court To Delay TikTok Ban
President-elect Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to pause the potential TikTok ban from going into effect until his administration can pursue a "political resolution" to the issue.
The request came as TikTok and the Biden administration filed opposing briefs to the court, in which the company argued the court should strike down a law that could ban the platform by Jan. 19 while the government emphasized its position that the statute is needed to eliminate a national security risk.
"President Trump takes no position on the underlying merits of this dispute. Instead, he respectfully requests that the Court consider staying the Act's deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, while it considers the merits of this case," said Trump's amicus brief, which supported neither party in the case and was written by D. John Sauer, Trump's choice for solicitor general.
The argument submitted to the court is the latest example of Trump inserting himself in national issues before he takes office. The Republican president-elect has already begun negotiating with other countries over his plans to impose tariffs, and he intervened earlier this month in a plan to fund the federal government, calling for a bipartisan plan to be rejected and sending Republicans back to the negotiating table.
He has been holding meetings with foreign leaders and business officials at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida while he assembles his administration, including a meeting last week with TikTok CEO Shou Chew.
Trump has reversed his position on the popular app, having tried to ban it during his first term in office over national security concerns. He joined the TikTok during his 2024 presidential campaign and his team used it to connect with younger... Read More