Political advertising is supposed to be "free speech" however, if you examine what is said in these ads, which is what most people base their decisions on, you will find them to be not only inaccurate, but deliberately misleading and in many cases just plain false. Yet, nothing is said or done to stop or limit the false and misleading advertising we are endlessly exposed to during an election time. Considering that most people do not read the newspapers, or watch the political newscasts (again not exactly true and forthright) we allow any special interest group, or individual who has the financial means to pay for the air time to promote their bias opinion and influence the majority.

Do you think that political advertising should be exempt from the truth in advertising standards that we hold all other companies to, or is it a matter of free speech?

If that is the case how will the majority of American's get honest and real information to make their decisions?



edited to emphasize questions

Well, I don't see the point in having a watchdog on them.

Firstly, it's clear to all viewers that these things aren't made by unbiased organisations. They expect bias and distortion. That's partisan politics.

Secondly, the big problem I have is that airtime is not fairly meted out. In Britain, any political party that is putting candidates in the correct number of constituencies can broadcast a "party political broadcast" which is shown no more times than any other party. They are 10 minutes long and are scheduled in TV listings. The only payments made by the party are in the production of the content, the airtime is free.

I think this really makes sense. Let all parties (after all there aren't that many in America) have a set number of programmes/ads and let them say what they like. Then elements like Bush's $200m campaign chest will not matter and will not mean he can dominate airtime just because he has a bigger budget.

I agree in having a system of political advertising that is free and equal in time, then we would all have the opportunity to hear from all who want to enter into the political world and not have to compete with the millions of special interest money that dominates what we see now, unless of course you are up at 3:30 in the morning watching local community access television. I remember at one time there was such a thing as Public Service Annoucements and equal air time that was required of the media, but as with most other social services - those in power took that away as well.

I can't help but wonder though, even if you allocated equal airtime to each party/candidate, wouldn't the candidate with the biggest budget still be able to produce the slickest and most professional-looking spots?

I believe you would have a tough time regulating that.

This is yet another reason I personally prefer a live debate between the two front-runners. In the case of GWB, I can't possibly imagine him having a prayer of holding his own in an open debate without the aid of his handlers!