Photo: Allie Carl/Axios
Candidates from both parties are mobilizing their legal teams in a last-ditch effort to get their opponents’ anti-war ads off the airwaves, records show.
Why: In the transition of the middle age, the attempt to paint the other side is very violent, the publications in question range from argument to fabrication. But every time, they focus on one of the two main issues that drive campaign messages: crime and abortion.
Driving information: In the past week, two Republican Senate candidates – Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Joe O’Dea of Colorado – have fired cease-and-desist letters to television stations they say are broadcasting post that misrepresents their views and record on abortion policy. Opposition parties say they will stand by the announcements.
- Several North Carolina television stations have canceled Republican attack ads against former Supreme Court Justice Cheri Beasley, who is running against GOP Rep. Ted Budd in the state race for the US Senate, for saying that he has made it easy to decide cases in childlessness cases.
- In Texas, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mike Collier’s campaign to withdraw an ad from Republican Rep. Dan Patrick says it misrepresents his views on racial issues. to immigration and the police. Patrick’s team is already there.
In the New York governor’s race, Republican candidate Lee Zeldin managed to change a clip from an ad showing the bad conditions in Oakland, California – not in New York City as the reporter said.
- Another of Zeldin’s big TV spots could make a difference: The family of a Black man killed by the NYPD has hired lawyers as they urge the GOP candidate to remove a clip from in a violent ad that says someone is holding a gun. Zeldin has agreed this time.
Between the lines: Under federal law, television stations are not liable for defamatory content in candidate ads. Legal threats against such sites are of course futile – but they can still be used as messaging tools.
- In the Pennsylvania Senate race, Republican lawmaker Mehmet Oz has clashed with the Senate Majority PAC after the Democratic party blasted ads alleging Oz was involved in dog slaughter as part of his previous medical research.
- Oz’s camp said he succeeded in pulling the trigger, calling it a victory over the Democrats’ “ridiculous lies.” SMP contends that the ads were “taken” and broadcast in plans to produce a “discussion” of dog fighting.
Yes, but: Advertisements are sometimes, in fact, fabrications – or misrepresentations designed to mislead.
- In the Texas gubernatorial race, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott interrupted Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke in a speech in which he said he supported decriminalizing the police. (Abbott’s team is standing by their announcement.)
- One of the ads by JD Vance, the GOP Senate candidate using the criticism of Rep. Former Tim Ryan for the police as a way to tie him to other allies who support the abolitionist movement (Ryan doesn’t like it).
- Some of Wisconsin’s Governor Ron Johnson’s posts have linked words and left others out like Democratic Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes’ support for violence against police. Johnson has been scrutinized and criticized for omitting important contexts and misleading viewers.
Zoom in: Regional races are not immune to media speculation.
- Republicans have targeted Democratic legislative and congressional candidates in North Carolina with “remove the police uniforms” images on mailers; Holograms impersonating candidates have fake voices in TV ads, and fake photos suggest candidates were arrested when they weren’t.
- Such delusions caused a stir on social media but it was still spread.
What they are saying: “When we are silent when the attacks happen, we speak more than the attack itself,” said Navin Nayak, head of CAP Action, told Axios.
- Janiyah Thomas, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said in a statement: “While Democrats continue to deny that crime is rampant and support a crackdown on the police, Americans know they can count on Republican leadership to handle the crisis.”
The big picture: This growing sentimentality is the result of an “unprecedented” information environment, says Jennifer Stromer-Galley, a professor at Syracuse University’s School of Education.
- “We’ve gone from stretching the truth to creating something completely new,” he told Axios.
- “Our democracy requires the people to have a fair say so that they can make decisions based on their interests. At the moment, we are increasingly living in an information environment where they cannot because it is full of tricks.”