Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Graham of South Carolina):

S. 2392. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require candidates to stand by their printed and Internet advertising, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the "Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act," together with my colleague from South Carolina, LINDSEY GRAHAM. This bill would extend the successful model of the "Stand By Your Ad" provision-which requires candidates for Federal office to take explicit personal responsibility for TV and radio ads-to additional types of media, including the Internet, that today aren't covered.

Although the elections of 2004 are still months away, the onslaught of political advertising has already begun. As the election nears, with each passing day, political ads become more and more prevalent.

But something is different this year. Two things, actually.

First, as anyone who watches television has probably noticed, this year political ads feature a personal statement by the candidate saying "I'm so-and-so and I approved this message." The candidates are taking full personal responsibility, clearly and publicly, for the advertisements put out by their campaigns.

This is the direct result of the "Stand By Your Ad" provisions included in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law. As the author of the original "Stand By Your Ad" amendment, together with my good friend Senator Collins, I'm proud of the effect our new requirement is having on the tone of radio and TV campaign ads. Already, in the first election cycle where it applies, it's making a real difference.

The reason is simple. The public is turned off by aggressively negative attack ads-and candidates know it. So when candidates have to associate themselves in a personal manner with their ads, they are going to be extra careful about the tone. A nasty or controversial attack can backfire, leading to negative perceptions of the candidate who approved it.

In short, candidates are thinking twice about the tone of the ads they put on the air. Representatives of national, non-partisan campaign reform groups such as Common Cause, the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21, and the Center for Responsive Politics have all been quoted in the press as saying that there has been a noticeable shift away from the overly negative attack ads of the past.

The second change this year is that Internet communications are coming into their own as a vehicle for political advertising. Americans are spending more time online-plus many now have Internet connections and computing power that enables them to view video that matches the quality of television. Political campaigns have taken note, and have made major strides in tapping into the tremendous potential of the Internet for reaching large numbers of people at low cost.

According to press reports, the Presidential campaigns already have e-mailed links to campaign videos to literally millions of people. These Internet-based communications can spread like wildfire, because each recipient can easily forward them to others. Moreoever, Web videos often attract attention from the news media, so the message sometimes ends up getting carried on television as well.

Political messages are also starting to appear on websites that carry banner or pop-up ads. It has been estimated that politicians will spend an estimated $25 million this year on online ads.

The rise of Internet-based ads is not just a flash in the pan-it's a trend that is sure to continue.

I have a long history of supporting the Internet, e-commerce, and Internet-based innovation. In politics as in so many other areas, the Internet brings exciting opportunities-in this case, to create new avenues for democratic dialogue and engagement in the political process.

But I don't believe that the Internet should be allowed to become a vehicle for political candidates to sidestep existing campaign rules and engage in mudslinging without accountability.

The problem is, the scope of the "Stand By Your Ad" provisions is limited. They only apply to television and radio ads. Internet communications are not covered. Nor are communications such as newspaper ads or mass mailings.

Already, there are clear signs that highly negative ads are migrating to the Internet-in part because the "Stand By Your Ad" requirements don't apply there. Here are a few recent press headlines:

"Political Attack Ads Already Popping Up on the Web."
"Presidential Ad War Hits the Web-Harsh Attacks Leveled Online, Where TV Rules Don't Apply."
"Political Smears Thrive Online."

The ads these articles talk about aren't just ordinary text messages sent through e-mail or posted on a website. Often, they are full, professionally produced videos, equal in quality to anything you might see on TV-and therefore packing the same emotional impact as a well crafted TV ad. But instead of using broadcast, satellite, or cable, they are e-mailed to thousands or even millions of Internet users.

So today, I am introducing the "Political Candidate Personal Responsibility Act." You could also call it "Stand By Your Ad II." The basic idea is that what works for TV and radio should work for other types of communications as well. Candidates wishing to distribute negative campaign materials via the Internet or the mail should be held just as accountable as they are now for ads they put on the air.

Specifically, the bill would require that campaign communications such as audio or video ads transmitted over the Internet, newspaper ads, brochures, bulk mailings, bulk e-mail, and prerecorded telephone calls-if they mention another candidate for the same office-must carry a "Stand By Your Ad" disclaimer stating that the candidate personally approved the message. For Internet audio or video and prerecorded phone calls, the requirements would be identical to those that now apply to radio or television. For printed materials, whether paper or electronic, a picture of the candidate would be required to accompany the statement.

I believe that forcing candidates to take personal responsibility also forces them to think long and hard about releasing the types of aggressive negative attacks that have been growing all too common during election seasons. This is important, because when people get turned off by the electoral process, voting and public involvement suffer. Decreasing the amount of negativity in our political campaigns may help reduce some of the cynicism about politics, and bring more people back into the process.

I say to my colleagues, Stand By Your Ad is working. So let's take the next step and extend this success to campaign communications generally. Let's build on the good work we've already done in getting candidates to take responsibility for what they say.

And yes, I'm RON WYDEN, and I stand by this statement.

I ask unanimous consent that my statement and a copy of the bill be printed in the RECORD.