Uncategorized

Candidates – who’s standing by your ads?

If you were fortunate enough in this past election to have someone other than your campaign committee pay for the production of your radio or television ads — or for their air time — you might want to check your disclosures.

In an opinion handed down today, the state Court of Appeals ruled that sponsors of political ads aired on radio or television  include both the producers of the message and the buyers of the media time, and that any such ads must disclose both in order to comply with the state’s “stand by your ad” law.

The case arose out of the 2010 battle for the 47th Senate District seat between Democrat Joe Sam Queen and Republican Ralph Hise.  Hise won that election, and as we reported earlier, Queen later sued the Hise Committee for failing to disclose in television ads that the Republican party had purchased the air time for those ads.

Both candidates received contributions from their respective parties which they used for ad buys.  In Queen’s case, the Democratic party  wired money to his campaign committee, which in turn used those funds to buy media time.  But for Hise, the Republicans sent funds directly to the media buyer, which then bought air time once Hise approved an ad.

Queen argued that because the Hise committee never had control over those funds, it could not  disclose itself as the sponsor of ads; rather, the Republican party should have been identified as the sponsor.

But the Court of Appeals didn’t reach that argument,  finding instead that both campaigns failed to comply with the law by not disclosing who paid for both the production and the air time for their respective messages.

“We hold that payment of production costs for the ‘message,’ here the videos, constitutes part of the sponsorship of an
‘advertisement’ under [the law],” wrote Judge Donna Stroud for a unanimous panel.  . . . “Thus, where different entities or individuals jointly purchase the message, the air time, portions of either, or both, they must disclose joint sponsorship under this section.”

Because the law requires aggrieved candidates to have otherwise fully complied with its provisions — which Queen did not — he could not recover any damages from Hise.

 

 

2 Comments


  1. Elizabeth Aubrey

    November 20, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    why don’t each of you line us up in a row and shoot us rather that take our only medicalcare away from us we can’t live by obamacare you every one lie to get in then throw us to the dogs Bev Perdue lied the biggest of all now I fin ally see each of you are out for one thing only hugh pay check to poop on the ones who can’t find a job or can’t work at all

  2. Frances Jenkins

    November 20, 2012 at 9:05 pm

    Joe Sam Queen is not a good person. Even the Democrats dislike him.

Check Also

State Supreme Court rules retroactive application of teacher tenure repeal is unconstitutional

The state Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that ...

Top Stories from NCPW

  • News
  • Commentary

When Andrea Hudson was pulled over for a routine traffic violation in 2013, the police officer found [...]

Right now in Shenzhen, which, with 12 million people is the fastest-growing city in China, a young c [...]

On Tuesday, Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger—one of the state’s most powerful Republican politic [...]

Unsurprisingly, the agenda for the General Assembly's "short session" that commences [...]

The post Bite the Apple & NC’s HB2 Legacy appeared first on NC Policy Watch. [...]

When I headed off to college, I could not have predicted that many of the funding streams, positions [...]

For those who pay only periodic attention to the ins and outs of lawmaking in the North Carolina Gen [...]

The post Know your ‘Thug’ appeared first on NC Policy Watch. [...]

Now hiring

NC Policy Watch is now hiring a Managing Editor – click here for more info.