Lies

Both candidates are fabricating half-truths and lies that they think will help get them (re)elected. They are helped by the fact that, it seems, the majority of Americans will not verify the information for themselves, cannot think critically enough to understand the deceptions, and/or refuse to remember the past.

There should be a law that disallows any candidate from using fabricated, questionable, or misrepresented information in any advertisement or campaign speech. Basically, if it is not in the voting record, if it is not published, or if the inferences drawn from the information cannot be backed up with data, you cannot use it without a severe penalty. Any person or group who solicits an ad or a speech for a candidate, whether or not they have the candidate's endorsement, would also affect the candidate. In order to make this law have teeth, I would say the penalty for doing so is one warning. If it happens again, the penalty is immediate forfeiture of the race, or the office if they win the position.

For example, in a previous election a group allegedly not affiliated with Bush in any way produced a series of attack ads against Kerry. It was fairly quickly proven that those ads were almost entirely fabricated, but the damage was done. In this law, even though they were not affiliated with Bush in any way, the Bush group would get the warning. If another ad was produced "helping" Bush's campaign, the Bush campaign would forfeit the race.

My thinking here is that it causes both campaigns to actively seek out and stop any negative campaign ads by their own party or people associated with them in any way. Further, if a group knew they could potentially cause the candidate they are promoting to lose the race via their attack ads, they would be disinclined to run those ads. It's not a perfect system, but it is better than what we have now.

If the penalty was forfeiture of the race, you can bet that politicians would hire the best and the brightest campaign managers and people to run their campaigns. They would double- and triple-check all ads and statements they were making to ensure any comments about what they have done (if already in office) and what their opponents have or have not done are as accurate as possible.

My thinking with this plan is that it would be easiest to talk about yourself, your goals, and what you plan to do and push for when in office, rather than run a smear campaign against your opponent. And, of course, the side-benefit would be that then, once you had served a term, you could only use those things you actually accomplished while in office, or actually voted for, etc. in your re-election campaign, as to do otherwise would violate the rule (and make you forfeit the race). In other words, campaigns would be primarily positive and about the candidates themselves, rather than negative attack ads designed to destroy the opponent and make people vote for the remaining campaigner by default.

In order to be fair, a campaign ad review board would have to be set up to monitor the campaign speeches and advertisements. The group would have to be fair and impartial, so would likely need a conservative, a liberal, and a moderate member, at the least. It would be to these people that each advertisement and speech would be given. Working somewhat like the Supreme Court, they would review the information and the pertinent facts and determine, by majority, whether the ad or speech violated the rule. If they determined yes, the person's campaign would get one warning. If a second violation occurred, they would immediately forfeit the race (or office). I would make the law have strong teeth in that the warning and then forfeiture is total for all campaigns by that person. In other words, if you run today for President and get one warning, and then you run next election and you have another questionable ad, you are out... the four years between does not matter.

Is my solution harsh? Yes. But the attack ads and negative campaigning are getting so extreme that I think something harsh is the only way to solve the problem. Let's take back control of the government any way we can. Remember, people shouldn't fear the government, government should fear the people.

Next up, a plan to solve the PAC, super-PAC, and spending issues with campaigns.