"Perry pushed for a law that lets insurance companies raise homeowners’ rates without having to justify the increase." Back to Basics, --Wednesday, September 8th, 2010.
Spending by interest groups, so-called Political Action Committees and Unions most notably, is up well over 5 times what it was in the 2006 midterms, according to an article in New York Magazine. Spending is up on both sides of the aisle, but these third-party groups are putting most of their money behind Republican candidates by a huge margin, approximately 7 to 1, according to The Washington Post! This was all made possible by last years Supreme Court decision saying that limits on spending were essentially the same as limits on free speech.
I have a problem with this because I don’t think a pharmaceutical corporation should have a stronger voice than a network of cancer survivor groups just because they can spend more on campaigns, but I suppose outside spending isn’t all that different than spending by the candidates themselves. Nothing stops a multimillionaire candidate from using his own funds to vastly outspend opponents on advertising. In a sense this is buying the election, but legally it’s not seen that way.
What is disconcerting is the out and out dishonesty of the campaigns. I am not naive. Politics has always been a dirty game. But in this election it seems that the fact that the backers of those PACs with the patriotic names can remain anonymous has emboldened them. Politifact.com, a non-partisan service that evaluates the claims of political discourse, evaluated 31 claims made in the advertisments of these third party groups in the current campaigns throughout the country. Only 5 were rated “mostly true” and two “true.”
Think about that for a minute. 31 claims were made in the political ads of third party organizations analyzed by Politifact.com. On 16% of those were claims were based substantially on fact, on only 6% were essentially true. All others were significant distortions of the facts or outright lies.
From sex drive to bladder control, this powerful berry can help you with your ailments. viagra sale online http://www.creativebdsm.com/contact.html It is said that masculinity and male self-respect viagra discount prices are greatly connected with each other. But it can be assured that if they take it buying levitra from canada as per the physician’s prescription. The sperm count is determined discount viagra india by two factors.
Ads from “super PACs” and other political groups targeting the 2010 midterm election are overwhelmingly spreading exaggerations and falsehoods, according to a fact-checking analysis by PolitiFact.
Of 31 claims in TV ads that PolitiFact has checked from groups such as American Crossroads and the Patriot Majority PAC, the vast majority have earned a Half True or lower rating on our Truth-O-Meter.
Forty-two percent earned a Half True, 23 percent Barely True and 13 percent were found to be False or Pants on Fire, the rating reserved for the most ridiculous falsehoods.
Only five of the 31 claims from the groups were rated Mostly True. Just two earned True ratings.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you can’t hold anonymous donors accountable for the lies told in the ads they pay for? Honestly, I am much less concerned about the amount spent, where it comes from and on whose behalf, than I am about the truth. It attack ads were based on substance, perhaps they would be less egregious. But when they are based on falsehoods, they distort our electoral processes. Because we are not voting based on a candidates positions any longer, but rather on distortions of their positions.
If only there were some way to hold candidates, parties, and third-party groups accountable for the truth in their statements and advertising on their behalf. Ideas anyone?