If that is being sent widely, no matter how "good" the message, it violates the FEC rules. Advertisements for or on behalf of a candidate for federal office have to state who paid for it, including if "in kind", the name of the registered committee for the candidate and the office he is running for, and whatever other requirements there are for print advertisements. One of those requirements is to state who approved it. Television ads have other requirements, which everyone has seen, such as "I'm [candidate's name] and I approved this message."
The video posted of people who voted for Obama and are going to or already did vote for Romney this year, did not state the office he is running for, or if the message was during the primaries for a primary contest. The flip side of the placards could have easily stated something about "President" or November 6. The lighting is uniform as if it was staged. It's not obvious if the spokespeople are actors or speaking for themselves.
Someone has to take responsibility for a real campaign ad, so there is a process to check validity, and amounts spent on behalf of the candidate.
I don't know if this is now out of control, because any written message can be edited after it is approved, and any video message, at least to the quality posted on YouTube, can also be edited after approved.
I take with many grains of salt any advertisement that does not have the required paid for and approved content.
The message I'm replying to, for instance, has no date, no signature. Any such message could be corrected by the authors and I wouldn't know from the portion you pasted. If you follow the guidance in the thread header and include a link to the source, it is easy to verify or validate such a posting. Or decide it doesn't need to be verified. Or to follow what happened after it was first posted. |
