Abolishing the political astroturf tactic

For those on the side of full campaign disclosure, you might like this idea:

When Harry andLouise appeared in TV ads to criticize the Clinton administration'shealth-care reform effort in 1993, that average American couple's viewshelped sink the proposal.

But Harry and Louise were not real people. They were actors hired bya lobbying group for the health insurance industry. Their successhelped spur a proliferation of issue-oriented ads in which actors urgevoters to get involved in "grassroots" campaigns.

This spring, government watchdog groups are pushing Congress to passlegislation to force lobbying groups to disclose their financial tiesto what critics call "astroturf" lobbying.

"You're looking at cute actors spinning out a story — it's an ad,"said Sarah Dufendach, chief of legislative affairs for Common Cause, anonpartisan public advocacy group. "As people see more and more ofthese ads, it's important to know who is behind them," she said.

The best part about this legislation is it would not limit free speech.  It would not ban this practice outright.  It simply asks campaigns to disclose what they are doing.

Republicans should be on-board with this.  If conservatives hate Hollywood as much as they claim, then why allow so-called "Hollywood types" (actors) to influence elections without the public knowing who they really are?

Comments

[Mitch Duff]

I like this a lot. Maybe there should be this same approach with McCain/Feingold. Isn't this bill a stopping free speach. Instead of limiting donations, shouldn't campaigns just have to disclose publically who is giving them money?