Before I ran for office I had an idea that truth was still valued by Americans. I’ve been watching the political ads closely, and am dismayed by the lack of “truthiness” coming from both sides. Sure, I know that the point of an ad is to convince someone to vote for or against someone. But, in my opinion, there should be facts IN CONTEXT in the ads.
Let me explain. There are ads about Tipton that try to make him responsible for the bailout of banks, simply because he sat on the board of a local bank owned by Zions. I know enough about banks to know that the decision to take bailout money wasn’t made at the local level, and Tipton never voted on any bailout funds. In fact in large holding companies, the local bank has little or no input on the policies of that bank. Also, the fact that he is a millionaire doesn’t automatically make him a bad guy.
Speaking of millionaires, Salazar’s ads make him look like just your average farmer. And in many ways he is, but having financed potato farmers in the San Louis Valley, I know that they need millions of dollars in working capital just to get a crop in the ground and keep it alive until harvest. Salazar is also a millionaire, just in the land that his family farms, and that doesn’t automatically make him a bad guy. He’s been attacked for taking money out of Social Security—a claim designed to make seniors afraid of him. The fact is that the bill Salazar is being criticized for took waste out of Medicare, and will not change seniors’ benefits one little bit.
The ads for and against Salazar and the ads for and against Tipton deliberately leave out important information in order to move people in the desired direction. It is shameful. And it will only get harder to decide who to vote for unless the excesses of money in the political ad silly season are somehow curbed. The Citizens United Supreme Court case opened the flood gates for lots and lots of money to flow into local politics—both from previously banned companies and unions. But that money isn’t making our elections fairer, they are making them more dishonest.
Homework:
Ad Truthiness Questioned
Let me explain. There are ads about Tipton that try to make him responsible for the bailout of banks, simply because he sat on the board of a local bank owned by Zions. I know enough about banks to know that the decision to take bailout money wasn’t made at the local level, and Tipton never voted on any bailout funds. In fact in large holding companies, the local bank has little or no input on the policies of that bank. Also, the fact that he is a millionaire doesn’t automatically make him a bad guy.
Speaking of millionaires, Salazar’s ads make him look like just your average farmer. And in many ways he is, but having financed potato farmers in the San Louis Valley, I know that they need millions of dollars in working capital just to get a crop in the ground and keep it alive until harvest. Salazar is also a millionaire, just in the land that his family farms, and that doesn’t automatically make him a bad guy. He’s been attacked for taking money out of Social Security—a claim designed to make seniors afraid of him. The fact is that the bill Salazar is being criticized for took waste out of Medicare, and will not change seniors’ benefits one little bit.
The ads for and against Salazar and the ads for and against Tipton deliberately leave out important information in order to move people in the desired direction. It is shameful. And it will only get harder to decide who to vote for unless the excesses of money in the political ad silly season are somehow curbed. The Citizens United Supreme Court case opened the flood gates for lots and lots of money to flow into local politics—both from previously banned companies and unions. But that money isn’t making our elections fairer, they are making them more dishonest.
Homework:
Ad Truthiness Questioned
RSS Feed