Advertising was much in the news this week.
The most-read posts on Under the Dome from last Sunday to noon today included some serious spending on television advertising, and problems with ads already airing.
1. Six-Million-Dollar Woman? A national Democratic group reserves as much as $6 million in air time to target U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole in the fall. Time to buy a Tivo?
2. McCrory's Strip Stake. A Charlotte strip club owner gave Republican gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory a donation, which the campaign won't return. No word on whether it was in fistfuls of $20s.
3. Some Plane Talk. Dole's campaign mistakenly included footage of a French plane in a TV ad about saving U.S. military bases. At least they got the red, white and blue part right.
4. Postponing Payday. Gov. Mike Easley's delay in signing the state budget meant some state workers would not see their raises right away. Mary Easley's doing OK, though.
5. Bully for You. A Christian conservative group helps defeat an anti-bullying bill because it includes references to sexual orientation. Talk about the bully pulpit...
Comments
Re: National Targeting of Candidates
July 19, 2008 - 1:44am — ProctorDome and its fellow political column/blog editors definitely like to stress the importance of campaign finance. But I wonder how much attention has been given to the specific practice of national party spending against a particular candidate in North Carolina or some other state?
Can we get a comparative profile of how much Democratic or Republican national party campaign organizations spend in direct campaigns to defeat particular candidates--as is being discussed with respect to the Democrats' effort against Sen. Dole--as opposed to national party contributions to particular candidates it favors in which cases the candidates are free to use the financial contributions for whatever purpose they chooses?
I.e., shouldn't analysts of campaign spending differentiate between national party contributions to state and local political campaigns on the one hand and direct spending to defeat a particular candidate on the other? If either the Democratic or the Republican Party spends several million dollars specifically to run negative advertising about a candidate of the other party and supports organizational efforts to defeat that candidate rather than simply making campaign contributions to the campaigns of candidates whom its supports, then doesn't that suggest that the national party organizations are presuming that the targeted state or local candidates should represent them as national organizations rather than the people of their states or districts?
It makes you wonder, if a Democratic Party group wanted to spend several million dollars in a direct effort to defeat a Republican candidate in North Carolina, for example, then why wouldn't they simply make a contribution in that same amount to the campaign of the Democratic candidate whose candidacy for the office in question they wish to support?
David McKnight
Re: Most Read: Vive la France!
July 18, 2008 - 10:59pm — FFC1304The bully law would have been UNconstitutional the way it was written, but
good try RyanTB...strive to be smarter.