The NRCC is scamming voters out of their money

[pbrower2a]

If I were a federal judge I would be prepared to issue a cease-and-desist order and a demand that money collected be returned to donors.

[pbrower2a]

It says 'defeat' in pretty big letters, guys. No reasonably literate person is going to be tricked into donating money by the Democratic candidate's picture. It's an insult even to a Democrat to think they would donate to this by mistake.

Someone with poor eyesight or who has misplaced spectacles? "Defeat" is not particularly bold or in a distinctive color. Showing the politician's image crossed out or upside down might make the point.

Deceit in fundraising is FRAUD. There could be violations of mail fraud and wire fraud statutes. 

[pbrower2a]

Okay, it's not exactly the most uplifting of strategies, but those images show that the fact that these are anti-candidate ads rather than pro-candidate ads is not being buried in fine print.  Anyone idiotic enough to be thinking they are sending money to support the named candidate is not bothering to read normal sized text before they click.

What is the point of this post? Am I supposed to condone this criminal behavior because someone who contributes made a minor error and act like both sides are at fault?

I don't know that it rises to the level of criminal behavior; it's a close one.

At the least it is a severe civil tort, one that a judge might address with a cease-and-desist order. Maybe there would be no consequences if the funds are returned to donors. At the least there would be the potential for contempt of court.

This is about in the same league as selling advertising in "professional directories" never published. The scam so works: the scammers call such professionals as physicians, attorneys, dentists, tax preparers, and optometrists selling advertising in the "(insert name of labor union)  Professional Directory" without getting permission from the labor union in question. 

[pbrower2a]

This is the right way to use negative ads in campaigning against a liberal candidate:


X votes with Barack Obama 92% of the time. She votes for ruinous taxes and for government regulations that stall American economic growth. She has San Francisco values that just don't fit the values (show a Gay Pride march) of hard-working people of (insert name of the Red state).  She voted for Obamacare. (show people cursing at higher medical costs) She's an enemy of the energy that we need. (show shuttered industrial plant) She'd rather give more welfare than create jobs.

We have a choice -- Y  (show pastoral scene with a happy family) -- who will cut taxes, streamline regulations, and create jobs. (show workers going through a turnstile into a factory) Y will vote to give America the best medical care system that money can buy (show reassuring physician). But Y needs your help. If you don't want X for Congress, then send your generous donation to Y.  We can't afford  X in Congress. (show scowling X, fade to an ebullient Y).

Paid for by Y for Congress.

There. No overt deceit about attracting the money of people who support X. If Y is so good, then (s)he ought to get the funding necessary for the campaign from people who share the values of Y.

You can imagine what X could use.

Y stalls all progress. (Show "NO" vote). He well serves out-of-state interests (show fat cats with cigars) and ignores you (show unhappy family). He even says that he wants to privatize social security and abolish Medicare (show aggrieved elderly). He'll sell out the environment out (show polluted scene) for campaign funds.

X will do what is right for you even if she disagrees with President Obama. She will fight for better schools (show happy children in school)  and higher wages (show people shopping). She's for people in her district, and she won't sell out. But she needs your help. Send money to X for Congress. 

   

[pbrower2a]

If the DCCC pulled this on Republican candidates, I think a lot of the responses in this thread would be different. Double standards.

Not mine!

[pbrower2a]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

That actually re-directs to the Democratic Party site, it doesn't ask for donations under a misleading url. Try again.

It's quite funny how some of the fools can read a url, but apparently can't read the content on the actual page.

The ad is unquestionably negative, and it could confuse nobody about its purpose.

[pbrower2a]

Apparently they got the idea from the liberals. Fight fire with fire!

That actually re-directs to the Democratic Party site, it doesn't ask for donations under a misleading url. Try again.

It's quite funny how some of the fools can read a url, but apparently can't read the content on the actual page.

The ad is unquestionably negative, and it could confuse nobody about its purpose.

Just like the one the NRCC put up about Sink?

A negative ad leaves no question of its purpose. It often has derisive music, cartoonish images of an alternative, mocking music, and some unsettling spin on a vote or on administrative performance. Negative ads are at times legitimate ways to expose extreme positions, incompetence, abuse of power, inexperience, conflicts of interest, or questionable connections. So if a politician trivializes rape or its consequences such is a good reason for many to vote him down. In 2012 Democratic nominees won Senate seats in Indiana and Missouri, states that voted against President Obama by 10%.

A deceptive ad intended to trick people into sending campaign contributions that they think are going to a candidate's campaign fund but are instead going to that candidate's opponent is fraud.