Instead of candidates hiring people like yours truly, to create campaign media that works on both conscious and subconscious levels to sway the voting public, what if all TV ads were, by law, only allowed to feature the candidate, with, say, the American flag as the backdrop, alone, speaking directly to the camera? Perhaps the words also subtitled on the bottom of the frame. No music, no graphs, no cut-away shots of disturbing or sentimental images. Only the candidate, talking to us, the voters.
Level the playing field. Don't make election popularity largely a matter of which candidate hires the most creative and effective propagandists. Insist that it be, instead, a running conversation with the public.
It would cost less, and the candidates might actually choose to spend fewer dollars if all they could do was talk to us. And instead of cleverly engineered negative ads snidely attacking other candidates, if they wanted to sling mud at an opponent, they'd have to look us in the eye and speak the words.
It might tone down some of the antagonistic rhetoric as well. Civility during elections could even promote a greater willingness from our elected officials to adopt a more bipartisan problem-solving approach.
I suppose the election cycles would be less interesting TV for us at home, but I suspect it would keep the issues and the candidates' ability to express their ideas about their differences and similarities front and center.
Certainly, the question of whether campaign finance reform is needed would remain. But perhaps the ads, whatever the play cycle, would be a truer reflection of the candidates and their positions.
Candidates should be forced to wear emblems like NASCAR drivers: size and placement commensurate with the amount of money pumped into the campaign by individuals, special interests, and "people" (corporations).
BY THE WAY: If there is a cap on individual contributions from human people, why are corporation people allowed to give all they want? We need to delineate "person" so corporations are the same "people" at tax time and in bankruptcy court that they are during political campaigns.
You have the right idea, for sure. These lying ads are killing our democracy and only serve to enhance broadcasters' bottom lines. And politicians are spending 75% of their time - fundraising.
A couple of thoughts: First, see the excellent article from FactCheck's Brooks Jackson about why political ads can legally lie: http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports188.html (You can also see this story in the documentary I made on this topic Broadcast Blues - if you can find a copy anywhere...)
Second, please understand that this mess was exacerbated when we lost the Fairness Doctrine. Stations used to have to put all the candidates on the air - as a condition of their license.
Broadcasters still get licensed only if the "serve the public interest." So let's talk about "Free Airtime." Why not require "Free Airtime" for candidates as a condition of broadcast licenses? Even Stan Statham, head of California Association of Broadcasters, told me in an interview (some time ago) that he would support such a measure - if journalists were able to ask questions. This also is a quick fix to the Citizens United problem. In a flash, it would take the money out of campaigns.
Last idea: How about we float an initiative in California to ban all campaign ads? Californians would vote for it. Then you know it would land in the courts. But we could sure make an issue of it!
See my blog for more media musings: http://www.SueWilsonReports.com
How is the media going to be neutral when their largest clients are paying obscene amounts of money to be able to tell their lies and replace real news with junk filler or propaganda.