Tag: advertising

Categories
incumbents insider corruption

Involuntary Campaign Contributions

campaign, funding, politicians, elections, democracy, Labyrinth, advertising, propaganda

Incumbent lawmakers should not be looting taxpayer dollars to fund their election campaigns.

Investigative reporter Lee Fang has learned that incumbents of both major parties are ignoring ethics rules in order “to use government money for ads clearly designed to influence voters.” 

Back in the 1990s, I was shocked to discover that the average incumbent congressperson spent more using the franking privilege, government funding of “official” newsletters to constituents, than the average challenger spent in his or her entire campaign. In this video age, they’ve upgraded their bragging to living color.

Here is a bipartisan couple from the many examples Fang discovered:

Democrat: A taxpayer-​funded ad aired by the campaign of New York Representative Tom Suozzi, talks about how “Tom worked across party lines to convince the president” to do something about the border.

Republican: A taxpayer-​funded ad aired by the campaign of Virginia Representative Jen Kiggans, in which she boasts about her track record on issues pertaining to veterans and the military.

Fang has identified at least nine other culprits and put together a YouTube video compiling some of these taxpayer-​funded ads. Everyone sees these as campaign spots — or “campaign-​style ads,” as Fang also puts it.

The ads even say (for example, in Wesley Hunt’s video) that they were “paid for with official funds” from the office of the congressman or with “official funds authorized by the House of Representatives.”

These “official funds” are not voluntary campaign contributions.

Congressmen, you’ve been caught. 

So stop.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and ChatGPT and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights Internet controversy

Democrats Protest a “Dangerous Path”

Hulu, Disney, censorship, political ads

“Hulu’s censorship of the truth is outrageous, offensive, and another step down a dangerous path for our country.”

While social media’s partisanship and Big Brotherish thought control have been on all our minds in recent years, the current Internet controversy has a slightly different slant:

  1. This time it is Democrats complaining. We’re used to having Republicans and other non-​Democrats grumbling about having their accounts shadow-​banned, frozen or closed, their posts taken down, and worse.
  2. This time it’s Hulu — a video entertainment streaming service, not a social media company or banking service — taking “the wrong side.”
  3. And now it’s not about the standards for regular services, but about accepting, or not, advertising.

“The Disney-​backed streaming service Hulu is refusing to run political ads on central themes of Democratic midterm campaigns,” writes Michael Scherer for The Washington Post, “including abortion and guns, prompting fury from the party’s candidates and leaders.”

The ads are almost innocuous. Tame stuff. So what is Hulu up to?

Suraj Patel, a Democratic candidate for Congress in New York City, protested the service’s refusal to run his ads. Then, after some back-​and-​forth — and editing — his ad was allowed to run: he had to replace the “climate change” with “democracy” and, The Post relates, swap “the footage of violence at the U.S. Capitol with footage of former president Donald Trump.”

This is irksome. Hardly a matter of The Truth, as “three executive directors of Democratic committees” put it, quoted at top. It shows how normal business advertising (on an unregulated entertainment service, not a normal news network) is a tricky biz, considering the unwillingness of the programmers to tick off viewers, who probably turn to Hulu for a respite from politics.

Yet, it would be better if Hulu didn’t allow any political advertising rather than some … and then only after editing. Who do the folks at Hulu think they are? Twitter executives? Zuckerberg?

I wonder if my Democratic friends will remind me that Hulu is a private company that can do as it wishes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary responsibility

Caveat Tempter

apple, temptation, rotten,

If, like me, you expect people to bear the bulk of the brunt of their own decisions, big ticket court rulings often strike you as bizarre.

Case in point? “Drugmaker Johnson & Johnson must pay $572m (£468m) for its part in fuelling Oklahoma’s opioid addiction crisis, a judge in the US state has ruled,” reads a BBC report.

“During Oklahoma’s seven-​week non-​jury trial,” the BBC informs, “lawyers for the state argued that Johnson & Johnson carried out a years-​long marketing campaign that minimised the addictive painkillers’ risks and promoted their benefits.”

A certain credulity boundary has been stretched, here:

  1. Don’t all ads stress selling points over … non-selling points?
  2. Doesn’t everyone know this, and, therefore,
  3. Shouldn’t they be expected to adjust — caveat emptor-wise — accordingly?
  4. And doesn’t everyone know painkillers are dangerous, and opiates notoriously so?

“The state’s lawyers had called Johnson & Johnson an opioid ‘kingpin,’” the report continues, “and argued that its marketing efforts created a public nuisance as doctors over-​prescribed the drugs, leading to a surge in overdose deaths in Oklahoma.”

The public nuisance biz is idiotic, of course. If the company had been slipping its drugs to kids on a playground, something like this would have some plausibility. But the actual situation? Nope.*

Shifting responsibility from self to others, especially deeply pocketed others, has many bad consequences … not least of which is deflection of our attention away from why opioid use is up. Which is something we should be looking into for our friends’, families’, and neighbors’ sakes.

Lawyers are our tempters, in such cases. 

And monetary awards can sure be addicting. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Johnson & Johnson is appealing the decision, of course.

PDF for printing

apple, temptation, rotten,

Photo by Max Pixel

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability general freedom government transparency media and media people nannyism national politics & policies responsibility too much government

Ad Budget Slashed

Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, advertising, partisan

Republican politicians, who had been running since 2010 on killing ObamaCare, did not. Not when they had a chance. Despite dominating Congress, they failed, because 

  1. they opted for a goofy way to do it (the House’s AHCA plan being a terrible mess, probably worse than the monster it was trying to replace) and 
  2. partly because the libertarians — along with a few “liberal” Republicans — blocked it in the Senate.

But that’s the olds; here’s the news: the Trump Administration has cut back ObamaCare’s advertising budget.

Progress?

I’m not sure. Maybe. Probably not.

The facts: ObamaCare outreach has been cut by 90 percent, and outsourcing grants to groups engaging in sign-​up efforts have been cut by 40 percent:

The Trump administration downplayed the impact of boosted ad spending, noting that during 2017 open enrollment there was a decline of 5 percent in overall sign-​ups. It also saw a 42 percent decline in first-​time enrollment and enrollment of people who pay their premiums decline by 500,000 people.

So, it seems natural to respond to a perceived decline in “demand” with a reduction in “supply” — or any attempt to drum up more “customers” for subsidized policies.

Also natural is the partisan fall-​out, with Democrats crying “foul” over the decided lack of support for their program. As Peter Suderman noted over at Reason, ObamaCare became partisan because it started out partisan.

But it was always — from conception in the Heritage Foundation braintrust* to its current choking gasps — an unworkable monstrosity.

And folks of all parties — and none — should be able to understand that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Note: the Heritage folks not unreasonably distance themselves from their past association with some of ObamaCare’s core notions, and others are skeptical of the distancing.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
folly ideological culture media and media people

The Advertising Hypocrisy Gap

Audi, Super Bowl, advertising, advertisement, wage gap, feminism

“What do I tell my daughter?”

So begins the Audi advertisement millions of Americans saw last Sunday during the yearly super celebration of commercials that, sandwiched in between them, included one of the most exciting football championship games ever. 

The ad shows a father watching his young girl racing go-​carts against young boys, and his thoughts continue: “Do I tell her that her grandpa’s worth more than her grandma?”

She won’t believe that. 

“That her dad is worth more than her mom?”

Not unless you want to sleep on the couch. 

“Do I tell her that despite her education, her drive, her skills, her intelligence, she will automatically be valued less than every man she ever meets?”

His daughter wins the race and dad considers, “Or maybe I’ll be able to tell her something different.”

Maybe? Maybe he’s fallen hook, line and sinker for the canard of the “gender pay gap.”

That gap is simply the median income of all men in the economy compared to the median income of all women. As the Washington Post explains, “The gender wage gap … can be primarily explained by differences in industry and occupation choice, hours worked, and gaps for taking time off to have children.”

The Post also discloses that Audi has “just two women on its senior leadership team in the United States and no women on its global management board.” I don’t know what they’re going to tell their daughters.

But I’ve always told my daughters they can do anything they put their minds to.

And perhaps I’ll add this advice: “Don’t buy an Audi.” 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
ideological culture media and media people

Camp, Kitsch, Goofy Pitch

The pitches aired in service of Obamacare have descended from the twee and lightly vulgar to worse than disastrously kitschy and outrageously camp.

The latest example is not the pajama boy icon for Obamacare, a young man wearing a onesie and demonstrating all the manliness of Peter Pan. Of that, Nick Gillespie agrees, it’s egregious: “For many — arguably most — Americans, this guy is hipster douchitude on a cracker.” But, Gillespie reminds me, I’m not the campaign’s audience. Young single women are.

Hmmm?

No, the nadir of fawning, in-​groupy appeal went much further in a video advertisement concocted, we are told, for the LGBT community. You have to see it to believe it — or better yet, just take my word for it. The first minute is jaw-​droppingly silly; the second goes beyond tasteless.

Its propaganda value? Dubious. I would not be surprised to discover that this was made as a parody, for comic purposes alone.

But I think I know enough about camp — the theory of which I’ll leave to Camille Paglia — to not be surprised that someone, somewhere, might actually think it a good way to reach the LGBT community.

Folks often complain about advertising. Well, the pandering, lip-​smacking vulgarity of “capitalist realism” has now come to the welfare state — even if at the hands of folks not directly connected to government. But to those in the know, let me confess: what gets my goat the most is its frank promotion of “assistance to help you pay.”

With the singer making the most vulgar gesture of all, a show-​me-​the-​money shot.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.