GOP Senate candidate to run 'Let's go Brandon' ad during Super Bowl
Source: The Hill
ARepublican candidate running for U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania is planning to run a campaign ad featuring chants of "Let's go Brandon" during the Super Bowl on Sunday.
The ad from candidate David McCormick features text highlighting issues that have hindered the Biden administration including the U.S. military exit from Afghanistan and rising inflation against an audio backdrop of crowds chanting "Let's go Brandon."
The controversial phrase was made popular by conservatives and supporters of former President Trump and is meant to be an insult toward President Biden.
McCormick told Fox News, who was first to report on the ad, that the purpose was to highlight "self-inflicted" problems that have plagued the Biden administration in the last year.
Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senate-candidate-to-run-let-s-go-brandon-ad-during-super-bowl/ar-AATNRS2?li=BBnbfcQ
The guy must have some money (or wealthy backers) if he can afford a Super Bowl ad. He hasn't yet made it out of the primary.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)dsc
(52,147 posts)ads from candidates tend to be must carry.
Even political ads have to meet standards.
Since everyone knows that LGB is a euphemism for something far more coarse the network can reject it on those grounds.
Otherwise, you're right. But, it's not "anything goes".
onenote
(42,531 posts)47 usc 315
ProfessorGAC
(64,817 posts)In the 2018 Gubernatorial race, Rauner had a clearly antisemitic ad against Pritzker.
Nearly all Illinois stations refused to run the ad.
cstanleytech
(26,213 posts)sporting event and there is nothing anyone can do as long as they apply it equally to everyone.
So really the only way this type of ad would be aired during an event like the Superbowl was if the network owner wants to air the ads.
onenote
(42,531 posts)Legally qualified candidates for federal office (including candidates in primary elections) must be given "reasonable access" by local stations. Stations must give federal candidates access to all classes and dayparts of a station (with the limited exception of news programming) and cannot, for example, refuse to sell time to a candidate during a program on which time is sold to commercial advertisers, such as a sports program.
cstanleytech
(26,213 posts)Polybius
(15,328 posts)But it won't help, because Dr. Oz is gonna crush him in their primary.
LogicFirst
(571 posts)milestogo
(16,829 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)It's utterly juvenile and obvious, and vulgar, but they have folks like you say, "What's vulgar about it?" So right wingers get away with it and they think it's their most clever stunt ever. So they keep doing it. And that is where we are as a country, coming up with ways to get away with saying fuck you to our President on TV.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)Do you think that's the worst way anyone has ever treated a president?
From the good old days, when civility ruled the land, 218 years ago:
Sat Sep 17, 2016: He'd say, "they treat politicians with much more respect than when I was alive."
Heeeeeeeere we go:
Thu Mar 1, 2012: Do I have to post this again?
and
Tue Apr-13-10: Born, on April 13, 1743, in Shadwell, Virginia,...
and many other identical posts:
Everytime I read online about the decline in political discourse, I bring out this cartoon. This is how Jefferson was depicted.
I continue to carry a $2 bill at all times in my wallet.
"Congress shall make no law...."
It's No Laughing Matter - Analyzing Political Cartoons
The prairie dog sickened at the sting of the hornet or a diplomatic puppet exhibiting his deceptions
It's also here:
Thu Apr 13, 2017: Happy birthday, Thomas Jefferson.
He was fortunate enough to live in a time of complete civility in politics, so unlike today.
Tue Aug 13, 2013: They're disrespecting our President!
Here's a message for everyone who feel politics used to be more civil in the good old days. No, it wasn't. I post this picture every time someone at DU says that politics has hit a new low.
Jefferson was one of the most detested presidents ever. People just loathed him.
Thomas Jefferson - The West
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jeffwest.html
The prairie dog sickened at the sting of the hornet or a diplomatic puppet exhibiting his deceptions
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2002708977/
You'll get over it.
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)The TV stations know what that means. Everyone does, except for you apparently.
You asked how it was vulgar. I told you.
So what if I "get over it"? That has nothing to do with whether or not the TV station should accommodate such vulgar stupidity.
The CA DMV won't let you pick sexual double entendre phrases for personalized license plates, even if the words chosen are not individually themselves vulgar.
CBHagman
(16,980 posts)in the time when the vote was restricted to a few and the media was limited to printed matter, there were no opportunities to send a message or make an impression on millions of people in a few seconds or to spread that message around the country and the planet.
And negative campaigning both in the 20th and 21st centuries has shaped policy on many levels. It's not just incivility. It's a life-or-death matter. We can make a very strong case that thousands died because Lee Atwater and Karl Rove did what they were paid to do.
DENVERPOPS
(8,785 posts)to counter the incredible half time show.....
I heard that it cost seven million for a thirty second commercial. Who paid for it???????????
It amazes me that the powers to be told eminem not to kneel in respect for Kapernick because it was a political statement, then they would run an ad that was absolutely 100% political.......
Polybius
(15,328 posts)They are neutral to political ads, we're just cheaper on the Super Bowl. Sad but true.
Polybius
(15,328 posts)If you can say it on TV, then you can air it in a commercial.
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)Good summary of the law at this link:
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:16789f20-0781-3d2d-9ce8-305e1a89f0a0
Polybius
(15,328 posts)It won't be, not should it.
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)I will get over it.
Polybius
(15,328 posts)The ad already aired. Let him beat Dr. Oz in the primary. He's the easier candidate to beat anyway.
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)I hope you're right that he is the easier candidate to beat.
Midnight Writer
(21,692 posts)Number9Dream
(1,560 posts)I've seen a lot of "Let's go Brandon" yard signs, t-shirts, and caps in the Lehigh Valley, PA. McCormick is running more TV ads than even Dr. Oz. I wouldn't be surprised if he wins the Repub primary.
blue neen
(12,319 posts)No signs or anything here in western PA. Just constant ads. McCormick, Dr. Oz, someone named McSwain for Governor. Then there's the new one from Jake Corman with some dude playing a rock guitar. I think Corman is running for Governor. He's a total RWNJ.
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)I was driving through Kingman, Arizona, on Highway 40 and saw this sign prominently displayed on a dilapidated bar off the highway. You can't even see the name of the bar, but his anti-Biden sign is visible for as far as the eye can see. Obviously the owner thinks it will bring him customers. In Kingman, it probably will.
DENVERPOPS
(8,785 posts)any ideas for a sign over her MAGGOT saloon.....
That simplistic ***** ********* ******* ***** makes many of us want to leave the state.......
(**sorry, but my adjectives would perfectly describe her for what she truly is, and I would get my hand slapped)
bucolic_frolic
(43,024 posts)I think we must counter their nonsense with our own well-targeted political buzz.
Do not think because they spew nonsense that the public won't pay attention and it will go away.
They are trying to push their revolution by unsettling the minds of the public to create outrage.
Don't read their lips, read their strategy.
NotHardly
(1,062 posts)HUAJIAO
(2,375 posts)WHERE are the brilliant DEM ad makers ?
DENVERPOPS
(8,785 posts)Don't even get me started on this topic.................
samplegirl
(11,460 posts)Our headquarters took the banner down!
NCjack
(10,279 posts)the sound and not watch the screen for all of the remaining ads.
C Moon
(12,208 posts)Deuxcents
(16,054 posts)Cant we just keep politics out of it? Especially ads like this.. the networks will take anyones money at this growing rate per second. Hope the people in his district vote him down.
moose65
(3,166 posts)Hes running for Senate in Pennsylvania.
Deuxcents
(16,054 posts)TheRickles
(2,042 posts)Regular ads that air nationally will run for something like six million dollars(!) for 30 seconds this year, and he's not in that ballpark yet.
livetohike
(22,118 posts)Ill change channels when it comes on during the Super Bowl. Hes laughable in trying so hard to get Trumps approval.
hermetic
(8,301 posts)Guy is a completely classless act.
Mawspam2
(722 posts)Probably not even Philly or P-berg. Erie? Harrisburg? Altoona?
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,693 posts)The article doesn't say. Seems a waste of money if it's national.
TheRickles
(2,042 posts)JI7
(89,237 posts)TheRickles
(2,042 posts)So each network affiliate shows different ads during those blocks of time. Not many, though.
ificandream
(9,315 posts)....starting, "Hey, Bumstead."
LogicFirst
(571 posts)Jim Lamon shoots at Senator Mark Kelly (Gabby Giffords husband), Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi. Check it out on google. Its criminal.
Deminpenn
(15,265 posts)He was born and grew up I PA, but hasn't lived in the state since. He ran the largest hedge fund in the US and lived in a nice CT estate. He recently moved back to western PA, but no idea if he sold his CT home or not.
He's married to Dina Powell, who worked in the Trump admin. She was there because she supported the tax cuts, deregulation and the other traditional R business-centric economics. One of those Rs who didn't really like Trump, but liked the policies.
Having seen many of his ads, the ones appealing to the Trumpets come off as kind of phony, imho .
turbinetree
(24,683 posts)onenote
(42,531 posts)Its a local ad sold by the local affiliate and the Communications Act bars stations from refusing to carry a candidates ad based on its content. 47 USC 315
Indeed, federal law requires local stations to give legally qualified candidates for federal office (including primary candidates) "reasonable access" to ad time. In particular, stations must give federal candidates access to all classes and dayparts of a station (with the limited exception of news programming) and may not impose a flat ban on selling ad time to candidates during high profile programming, such as sporting events if commercial advertising is sold during those events.
CaptainTruth
(6,572 posts)Strange, that is.
Skittles
(153,104 posts)they didn't care about the soldiers at ALL until the end
Mz Pip
(27,430 posts)and get no response. Crickets.
The cult is a lost cause.
I was told I was brainwashed today because I debunked the latest BS that Biden was spending $30 million dollars on crack pipes for Black people.
I would laugh if it werent so pathetic.
OneCrazyDiamond
(2,031 posts)It means an obscenity.
onenote
(42,531 posts)SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)Good summary of the law at this link:
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:16789f20-0781-3d2d-9ce8-305e1a89f0a0
onenote
(42,531 posts)Only obscenity can be censored in a political ad.
Better (i.e., more specific) summary of the law at this link:
https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2014/09/articles/questions-about-the-truth-of-political-ads-whats-a-broadcaster-to-do-when-a-candidate-complains-about-an-attack-ad-the-no-censorship-rule-for-candidate-ads/
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 15, 2022, 04:20 PM - Edit history (1)
Your blog is not a better nor more specific summary of the law.
It doesn't discuss the statutory nor case law, it just restates your opinion. But, the graphics are impressive.
onenote
(42,531 posts)A specific statutory provision governs over a general statutory provision. Thus, the general prohibition on a broadcaster transmitting obscene, indecent or profane content, gives way in the face of the specific statutory provision barring a broadcaster from engaging in censorship with resect to political advertising by a legally qualified federal candidate.
And, if the blog (which I didn't write by the way, but was written by one of the leading broadcast law practitioners) didn't convince you, here are the words of the FCC:
See In Re Complaint by Julian Bond, 69 F.C.C.2d 943 (1978) ("Finally, even if the Commission were to find the word 'nigger' to be 'obscene' or 'indecent,' in light of Section 315 we may not prevent a candidate from utilizing that word during his 'use' of a licensee's broadcast facilities." Id. at 944); see also In re Commission Policy in Enforcing Section 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act, Report and Order, 68 F.C.C.2d 1079, para. 25 (1978) ("All stations are forbidden by Section 315 of the Communications Act from censoring any uses of a broadcast station by a legally qualified candidate for public office and may not dictate the content or format of any non-exempt appearance of such candidate."
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)See my post 68 below.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2869688
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)The lawyers on the staff at "Saturday Night Live" have found "Let's Go, Brandon" acceptable to air.
{edited: the sketch was cut for time, but other than that, it could have aired.}
I expect I could also find a whole bunch of examples from the various networks' morning and evening news broadcasts.
Full disclosure: IANAL.
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)Pacifica got in trouble because they aired the "7 filthy words" in the afternoon, when children may be watching. Fuck is one of George Carlin's "7 filthy words" the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly found to be indecent. (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) 438 U.S. at 750.) Euphemisms for indecent material is similarly restricted.
Infinity Broadcasting company aired a live description, albeit with oblique references and innuendo, of two people having sex in St. Patricks Cathedral during the day and were hit with a $357,500 indecency fine by the FCC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opie_and_Anthony
Happy Valentine's Day, Mahatmakanejeeves.
Polybius
(15,328 posts)Can't ban it.
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 14, 2022, 05:19 AM - Edit history (2)
See my post 68.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=2869688
Fuck is one of George Carlin's "7 filthy words" the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly found to be indecent. (FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) 438 U.S. at 750.)
Infinity Broadcasting company aired a live description, albeit with oblique references and innuendo, of two people having sex in St. Patricks Cathedral and were hit with a $357,500 indecency fine by the FCC.
Infinity Broadcasting was issued the fine after two of their radio hosts on the Opie & Anthony program on WNEW-FM dared listeners to have sex in the cathedral in August of 2002.
The FCC also issued $27,500 fines to 12 other Infinity stations that aired the broadcast, the maximum allowed under federal regulations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opie_and_Anthony
kimbutgar
(21,039 posts)Cant we have a day without BS politics?
I hope he gets destroyed In the primary !
OldBaldy1701E
(5,079 posts)I did not see an ad that had anyone chanting that stupid phrase. Maybe they did not show it here?
Deminpenn
(15,265 posts)Here in western PA, but did a bunch of ads for UPMC and other locals
onenote
(42,531 posts)47 USC Section 315
That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section.
Stations must give legally qualified candidates "reasonable access" to ad time. In particular, stations must give federal candidates access to all classes and dayparts of a station and may not refuse to sell time on high profile events, such as sporting events, if commercial advertisers can buy time during those periods.
So broadcasters' hands are tied in this sort of situation.
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)18 USC Section 1464
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
onenote
(42,531 posts)I've been advising tv, radio and cable television systems on their FCC obligations for 40+ years.
Only exception is obscenity. And Let's Go Brandon isn't obscene.
https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2014/09/articles/questions-about-the-truth-of-political-ads-whats-a-broadcaster-to-do-when-a-candidate-complains-about-an-attack-ad-the-no-censorship-rule-for-candidate-ads/
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 14, 2022, 05:47 AM - Edit history (1)
Let's Go Brandon is indecent. It stands for Fuck Joe Biden.
Material can still be, and has been, deemed indecent for FCC purposes even if it uses euphemisms or innuendo, as discussed at this link: https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:16789f20-0781-3d2d-9ce8-305e1a89f0a0
The real question is will the current FCC do anything about it. I think we can all agree they won't do jack shit. They only seem to care about accidentally exposed nipple pasties.
onenote
(42,531 posts)See In Re Complaint by Julian Bond, 69 F.C.C.2d 943 (1978) ("Finally, even if the Commission were to find the word 'nigger' to be 'obscene' or 'indecent,' in light of Section 315 we may not prevent a candidate from utilizing that word during his 'use' of a licensee's broadcast facilities." Id. at 944); see also In re Commission Policy in Enforcing Section 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act, Report and Order, 68 F.C.C.2d 1079, para. 25 (1978) ("All stations are forbidden by Section 315 of the Communications Act from censoring any uses of a broadcast station by a legally qualified candidate for public office and may not dictate the content or format of any non-exempt appearance of such candidate."
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)Your 1978 FCC administrative opinions predate the FCC's Luken Memorandum, and are from an era when the racist, sexist FCC ruled the n-word was not obscene, and thus racist candidates could readily use it in their advertisements. Times change.
In 1984, Congressman Thomas A. Luken raised the potential statutory conflict between section 1464 and section 315. Specifically, Luken requested a ruling advising what the legal duties of broadcast licensees were when a political candidate, pursuant to her section 312(a)(7) and 315 rights, requested air time for an advertisement containing either obscene or indecent material. In a memorandum drafted in response, then-FCC Chairman Mark Fowler analyzed both the legislative history of section 315 and the canons of statutory construction. The Chairman first concluded, based on a reading of the legislative history of section 315, that Congress did not intend the section to confer immunity on candidates for federal office from obscenity or indecency laws. (See page 4, Memorandum to Letter from Mark Fowler, Chairman, FCC, to Hon. Thomas A. Luken, U.S. House of Representative (Jan. 19, 1984) ["Luken Memorandum"], on file with Commlaw Conspectus.) This was supported by the deletion from the original bill of an amendment which relieved licensees from liability for any uncensored material that violated criminal laws. (Id. at 3-4.)
Second, Chairman Fowler concluded that the canons of statutory construction supported the determination that section 315 should not be interpreted to supersede section 1464. To do so, the Chairman stated, would render an unreasonable result, i.e., granting an exemption from the federal Criminal Code to broadcasters and political candidates under section 315 for content, which by definition, lacked serious political value. (Id. at 5-6.) In determining that section 315 did not grant immunity from the provisions of section 1464, the FCC stressed that "the exclusion of obscene or indecent speech does not violate Section 315's purpose of fostering political debate. The spirit of Section 315 is uncompromised by reading Section 1464 as an exception to Section 315's no-censorship provision." (Id. at 6.)
onenote
(42,531 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 15, 2022, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)
It was a letter from the then Chairman of the FCC to a member of Congress offering the Chairman's opinion of the relationship between Section 315 and Section 1464.the law. But it wasn't signed onto by any other members of the FCC let alone a majority and in the intervening 38 years it has never been cited or followed by the FCC or any court. If in fact there is a case where the FCC has sought to enforce Section 1464 against a political advertisement from a legally qualified federal candidate, I'm sure you will point it out.
In the meanwhile, when i have a chance, I'll post a review of some of the decisions that the FCC and courts have issued in the intervening years -- decisions which call into question not only whether Section 1464 overrides Section 315 but also the notion that "Let's Go Brandon" would ever be found to be "indecent" under the FCC's rules and decisions.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,283 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 14, 2022, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)
I expect I could also find a whole bunch of examples from the various networks' morning and evening news broadcasts.
{edited: the sketch was cut for time, but other than that, it could have aired.}
Full disclosure: IANAL.
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)The Chairman of the FCC speaks for the FCC. And what he said regarding the legislative history is persuasive and correct, and was obviously prepared by FCC attorneys. The Luken Memorandum has been cited in numerous law review articles (that's how I found it). How many cases or law review articles have cited your 1978 admin opinions? There is not much recent case law on the subject, mostly because using F-bombs or profanity in a political ad was not done because it would harm the candidate...at least that was the case before MAGAts lowered the bar on what was acceptable for political discourse on the airwaves.
But as I said above, I don't think today's FCC will do anything about Let's Go Brandon, anymore than it does anything about the F-bombs we now frequently hear on TV. It can do something, but it won't. The FCC is much more concerned with exposed genitals on TV.
So, all we can really do at this point is throw out counter memes.
onenote
(42,531 posts)Letters sent by the Chairman of the FCC in response to a letter from a member of Congress do not represent the "considered opinion" of the FCC. Indeed, the other members of the FCC do not see those letters in advance and have no input whatever into their content. Fowler's letter to Rep. Luken no more "speaks" for the entire Commission than Luken's letter spoke for the entire Congress.s
Yes, the letter was written with assistance of FCC lawyers. Likely those who were members of Fowler's staff. But even if it was written by the General Counsel's office (and I speak aas someone who has been an FCC attorney), I can assure you that those lawyers were directed to come up with an argument that supported the Chairman's position. In case you didn't know it, the General Counsel of the FCC is appointed by the Chairman of the FCC.
As for the letter being cited by law review articles, weren't you the one who pooh-poohed blog posts written by experts in the field? The law review articles that cite the Luken letter acknowledge its existence, but they can't characterize it as representing the official, considered, official, binding position of the FCC nor do they uniformly endorse the position taken in the Luken memorandum (despite your conclusion that it was "persuasive." )The Chairman was speaking for himself. Period.
Finally, the courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized the role played by both Section 312 ("reasonable access" and 315 (no censorship) play in protecting political discourse from FCC regulation (including, for example, finding that the FCC not only may not give a broadcaster the discretion to refuse to broadcast libelous or offensive political ads (including ads graphically depicting aborted fetuses that are conceded be harmful to children), but also may not even require a broadcaster to channel political ads to a less desirable time period where the audience for the ads would be limited.)
SunSeeker
(51,502 posts)A blog post is not on par with a published law review article. Your reference to the aborted fetus ad cases is not on point. Aborted fetus ads have been found to not fall within the definition of obscenity. In America, gore is fine for TV, even if it hurts kids. It is women's nipples that we protect kids from seeing on TV. Well-reasoned law review articles have concluded that section 1464 of the Federal Criminal Code supercedes the Federal Communication Act's no censorship provisions. I agree with them. You obviously don't. I can live with that.