Political ads need regulation

I know you’ve seen it a million times on your local television station — a political commercial supporting either your local Democrat or Republican candidate. It must be law to carry a statement at the end from the candidate saying that he or she has authorized the advertisement.

Of course, you’ve become so accustomed to these political ads, you know that much of the ad contains information that is slanted and/or incomplete in order to make a certain candidate look bad or another look good. In other words, you know there’s another side to the story because you recognize it’s coming from a biased source. For example, one of my favorite columns in the Washington Post appears during political seasons, when the Post takes each ad, dissects it and points out where the ad is accurate or misleading.

In Washington, we experience a similar phenomenon. Whenever a significant piece of legislation comes before Congress, we get inundated with political ads touting the pluses or minuses of the pending bill. Sometimes, when there is a particular senator or representative who needs to be influenced, you see the same ads in your district. However, it’s generally a Washington thing.

For at least the past six months, we’ve been subjected to constant ads about Internet neutrality. Because the issue has been dragging on for so long on Capitol Hill, our exposure has been longer than usual.

There is a significant difference in the candidate ads you typically see, and the political ads to which we’re subjected. Since candidate ads generally depict one person versus another, i.e., one Democrat versus a Republican — with an occasional third-party candidate — it’s pretty easy to tell the players without a scorecard. In a political ad, it’s not as clear.

Although we see many ads sponsored by groups such as AARP or the NRA, often it’s an unfamiliar name. Typically, the word “consumer” or “citizen” appears in the group name, to give you the impression that the group is a grassroots campaign. However, without some media outlet giving you the details behind the ad, you have no idea what the group is or whether they have any credibility.

What you usually find is that the group is actually a front for some business entity. In the Net neutrality debate, if you dig behind the scene, you’ll find that the battle is really between the cable companies versus the telephone companies. Yes, it’s Comcast versus SBC, but you have to do your homework to figure it out.

I don’t object to ads such as these, per se (other than how many we see). Rather, I object to the purposeful obfuscation of the speaker of the message. I’m a big fan of a vigorous debate about important issues, but don’t hide behind a cloak. Use the courage of your convictions to convince me that Net neutrality is either good or bad for me, based upon facts and not because some John Q. Public believes it to be so.

I believe there’s some responsibility on the part of the FCC to regulate such ads, just as the commission has done with candidate ads. Merely requesting a sponsorship ad from a newly formed coalition isn’t enough. It’s just as misleading as no sponsorship information at all.

I know, the current regulatory environment negates the possibility of such action. But as the telecommunications industry keeps consolidating, and we’re left with just a few behemoths, regulation becomes more important. A diverse, competitive market regulates itself. Unfortunately, it appears that we have both consolidation and light regulation. This market is becoming less functional every day.

Alan Tilles is counsel to numerous entities in the private radio and Internet industries. He is a partner in the law firm of Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker and can be reached at [email protected].