Truth in Campaigns Initiative

yustr · 10-30-2008, 10:32 AM

As I drove 3232 miles I had plenty of time to think about all the crud being thrown around by both sides. Here's an idea - let me know what you think:

Each candidate designates one staff member to sit on a hearing board. The staff member better be highly trusted because the purpose of the hearing board is to decide if an accusation made is a lie. If it is determined that it is in fact a lie - the ad must be pulled immediately or if its a statement it must be immediately retracted. The board would issue a news release to that effect.

Consequence if not followed: The candidate is disqualified and the party must nominate someone else.

Now what about those claims that are partial truths? The hearing board would make a determination and release a statement to the extent that After hearing from both sides, "we find it more true than false" or " we find it more false than true" and here's why.

What about 3rd party ads and commercials? Again, upon challenge, the hearing board would review and, if found to be a lie, the candidate would have to disavow the ad and, most importantly, the group that funded it.

Draconian? Yep, but I think that after just a few instances the whole tone of the debate will change for the better.

BTW: I define a lie as: knowingly using a false statement in a deliberate attempt to deceive.

bry623 · 10-31-2008, 09:53 AM

If both sides agreed to it, I'd be all for it. Of course, they also agreed to only use the Federal Funding and one of them broke that.

**simpswr** · 10-31-2008, 04:52 PM

. . of course you relaize they never agreed to that . . which is what grinds McCains gourd

Listen to McCains own words / / "During the primaries, he said that he would meet with McCain to discuss campaign funding . . which never happend . . but is a long way from "agreeing on it, then reniging" . . somehow described as "breaking a proimise to the American Public"

. . and we ( Republicans ) wonder why people do not trust us anymore. . .

. . another one of those outrageous statements the board would rule on???

**sobeit** · 11-01-2008, 06:29 AM

if there was truth in campaigns, there would never be any excitement so it would be boring.

The only problem with boards is even trusted members can be bias and manipulated. Its like any arbitration boards, their job is always on the line, if they do not regularly support the person who is paying them, then they are gone and someone else will take their place.

10-30-2008, 10:32 AM	#1 (permalink)
yustr Asst. Manager, The Conversation Pit Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Connecticut shore Posts: 6,052 OS: XP Pro My System	Truth in Campaigns Initiative As I drove 3232 miles I had plenty of time to think about all the crud being thrown around by both sides. Here's an idea - let me know what you think: Each candidate designates one staff member to sit on a hearing board. The staff member better be highly trusted because the purpose of the hearing board is to decide if an accusation made is a lie. If it is determined that it is in fact a lie - the ad must be pulled immediately or if its a statement it must be immediately retracted. The board would issue a news release to that effect. Consequence if not followed: The candidate is disqualified and the party must nominate someone else. Now what about those claims that are partial truths? The hearing board would make a determination and release a statement to the extent that After hearing from both sides, "we find it more true than false" or " we find it more false than true" and here's why. What about 3rd party ads and commercials? Again, upon challenge, the hearing board would review and, if found to be a lie, the candidate would have to disavow the ad and, most importantly, the group that funded it. Draconian? Yep, but I think that after just a few instances the whole tone of the debate will change for the better. BTW: I define a lie as: knowingly using a false statement in a deliberate attempt to deceive. __________________ If there are lawyers or politicians involved, logic may be a very poor tool for reaching a conclusion.

10-31-2008, 09:53 AM	#2 (permalink)
bry623 Manager, The Conversation Pit/Analyst, Security Team Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: NW Territory circa 1787 Posts: 11,692 OS: winxp pro sp2	Re: Truth in Campaigns Initiative If both sides agreed to it, I'd be all for it. Of course, they also agreed to only use the Federal Funding and one of them broke that. __________________ "If you aren't a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you aren't a conservative when you are 50, you have no brain"

10-31-2008, 04:52 PM	#3 (permalink)
simpswr Moderator Hardware Team Join Date: May 2007 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 12,274 OS: XP, Vista, Win 7	Re: Truth in Campaigns Initiative . . of course you relaize they never agreed to that . . which is what grinds McCains gourd Listen to McCains own words / / "During the primaries, he said that he would meet with McCain to discuss campaign funding . . which never happend . . but is a long way from "agreeing on it, then reniging" . . somehow described as "breaking a proimise to the American Public" . . and we ( Republicans ) wonder why people do not trust us anymore. . . . . another one of those outrageous statements the board would rule on??? __________________ Rich MemTest86 \| BenchTest \| Virus/Trojan/Spyware Help How to post a Screen Shot \| PC running slow? Last edited by simpswr; 10-31-2008 at 05:15 PM.

11-01-2008, 06:29 AM	#4 (permalink)
sobeit TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: NEAR Posts: 7,433 OS: windows/linux	Re: Truth in Campaigns Initiative if there was truth in campaigns, there would never be any excitement so it would be boring. The only problem with boards is even trusted members can be bias and manipulated. Its like any arbitration boards, their job is always on the line, if they do not regularly support the person who is paying them, then they are gone and someone else will take their place. __________________ there's been global warming since the ice age