Home› A Moving Train

Do you/should you/can you hold candidates responsible for 527s?

digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
edited November 2008 in A Moving Train
OK, so this thread was inspired by the recent news of an independent Pennsylvanian Republican organization creating a pretty fiery ad regarding Obama and Rev. Wright that is airing in Pennslyvania now. Now, there is no direct connection between this ad and the McCain campaign; it's a 527 PAC, an independent organization. Now, as far as I understand it, there are much less legislative law on the books against 527s as opposed to official campaigns. However, more importantly, 527s are able to do the candidate's dirty work for them, whether concisiously planned as such or not. McCain has notably refrained from allowing his campaign to use Rev. Wright against Obama (officially, and for the most part if you don't count Palin). However, in this case, it's a win-win. The PA Republicans can create this ad, the message can get out, but McCain's camp can wash its' hands in the national media because it was a group that acts independent of the official campaign. Of course, this happens on both sides; you haven't seen Obama's team create a commercial or Obama mention in a speech McCain's health and specifically his cancer scares, however an independent group did just that. The message got out, but it wasn't Obama's campaign, so they don't need to be held to measures of integrity.

Now, there is really no legal capability to stop independent groups, nor should there be. But the PA ad was made by the PA Republican Party, and the McCain cancer ad was made by moveon.org (I believe). I'm supposed to believe that these respective organizations would not drop the controversial ads if asked by the respective candidates? I doubt that. And let's keep in mind that the candidates have seemingly outlawed Wright and cancer from their respective campaigns. Yet there they are on highly televised ads regardless.

Now, obviously you can't respond to every 527 out there, but these are highly publicized advertisements that bring to mind the issues the candidates themselves have outlawed. Which is to say they are not outlawed, but the candidates have 'plausible deniability.' Now, there's nothing illegal about this, but my question is if you can consider the candidates and their campaigns responsible for the words and actions of these more highly publicized 527 organizations, or do you need to make a differentiation? I mean, these organizations are in no way officially working with the campaigns, but if we use our common sense, the campaigns don't mind these independent groups working, or they would have asked them to stop. Does this mean the candidates have not REALLY outlawed these topics?

It's a thorny issue, I think. I don't really know the answer.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • jimed14jimed14 Posts: 9,488
    Aren't 527s just loopholes? They should close the loophole.

    They've been horrible on both sides ... there was that one from an Obama supporting 527 about John McCain's cancer with some graphic pics of his scar ... just completely unnecessary.

    I'm all for capped/limited financing, more (restructured) debates, town hall events, etc etc ...

    the money spent on political advertising in total is out of control.
    "You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91

    "I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
  • digsterdigster Posts: 1,293
    I guess my question is less about the legality of the independent groups, and more should candidates be held accountable for their words and actions. Take Wright for example; McCain has outlawed him as a tactic supposedly, but 527s and independent groups are creating a massive amount of print and media advertisement to connect Obama to him. So the fact on the ground is really that he is not outlawed at all. Hell, I've seen the Wright ads a dozen times in the past two days, and I live in fucking New York. I can only imagine what it's like in Ohio. So it's not 'outlawed.' It is an issue; the only thing missing is John McCain saying "I approve this message." Should McCain, therefore, be held accountable for these groups and their advertisements? Should they be considered a part of the McCain camp's dirty campaign, as they have not admonished them or seemingly made any attempt for them to stop? Same with Obama and the independent groups making a big deal about McCain's cancer scars.
  • jimed14jimed14 Posts: 9,488
    I think we've entered such a crazy scene where every single comment made on either side that seems out of bounds, now the candidate HAS to repudiate it or he's complicit ... and while some are indeed disgusting and need the opposition to stand up and say something ... this constant need for accountability for EVERYTHING said by EVERY 527, surrogate, etc is getting pretty silly .... it's mainly to fill the 24 hour news fix everyone is on (and indeed, I'm guilty of feeding into it as many that are reading here are as well). People need something edgy to get ratings, sell papers, etc ... imagine if we used all thsi energy to solve the world's problems instead of divide us further.

    In the case of Wright, McCain is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't ... if he doesn't say anything about the 527s, he's seen as complicit ... if he does say something, he's making news out of it .... he'll probably be hammered by the exteme left either way.
    "You're one of the few Red Sox fans I don't mind." - Newch91

    "I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass." --- Pedro Martinez
Sign In or Register to comment.