Talk:Stand by Your Ad provision

message: Any examples of humorous use? Would be useful (though not necessary). --24.62.231.208
: Well, it is necessary -- and if not an example, then a citation. So I put a "citation needed" note on the sentence. Timothy Perper 23:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This webcomic might be one such example: PhD comics. The young character is a PhD student, the older one his thesis advisor and a professor. Both are recurring characters in this comic strip. The professor constantly pressures his staff to produce more research, including by "strongly encouraging" working at night and on weekends.--Pierremegevand (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe it would be good to find a photo or screenshot of recent ads that highlight the disclosure portion as a visual example to heighten the information provided (in the lead section)?Regina.valensia (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples?

message: Requesting more information about court challenges; is the law constitutional or not? Bwrs (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for expansion 

message: First citation comes up blank. 160.227.24.126 (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Stand by Your Ad provision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603165914/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20031113-1403-standbyyourad.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20031113-1403-standbyyourad.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by Tuk28507 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Money and Politics

message: Online advertising
The "Stand By Your Ad" requirements do not cover any form of advertising over the Internet. Campaigns now regard the Internet a medium that is as important as television, radio and print advertising, or perhaps even more important due to its cost-effectiveness and rate of propagation.
Candidates have been known to take the mudslinging online, hoping that it would create sufficient controversy that media outlets would afford the coverage it needed without associating themselves to the attack. During the 2004 presidential election for instance, George W. Bush's campaign produced a web video with the conclusion "Kerry (D-MA) – Brought to you by the special interests" and sent it out to six million supporters via email. Another known tactic is for any campaign or person to upload an exclusive online attack ad, known or anonymously, on a video-sharing website such as YouTube without taking any credit for it. This was highlighted by the media after an anonymous editor uploaded a parody 1984 ad depicting Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) as "Big Brother" during the 2008 Democratic primaries, which garnered over five million views online.
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) has since proposed to extend the requirement to political advertising on the Internet. The sequel "Stand By Your Internet Ad Act" was introduced into the United States Congress on April 12, 2005, but has received little momentum since. This bipartisan effort by Senators Wyden (D-Oregon) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) would apply the existing rules to include additional electioneering strategies like print ads and internet ads, in an effort to deter candidates from inflammatory campaign communications.[1]
'''
Reception[edit]
Howard Dean, who ran for the 2004 Democratic nomination, took some unwarranted attacks from people who were not aware of the act, who thought he was being self-important or obvious in the phrasing. While opponents of the provision at its time of introduction lodged challenges in court that it would violate the First Amendment, others believed that the law merely stiffened disclaimer guidelines and had no effect on limiting free speech. One example is the McConnell v. FEC decision, which upheld the Stand By Your Ad provision as being constitutional, yet dissenting concerns remain about the threat posed to anonymity due to the regulatory mandate that calls for TV and radio ads to publicly disclose their sponsors.[2]
Campaigns have lamented that the seconds used for the candidates to approve the communication results in less time for them to communicate their message, increasing their costs of campaigning. One media adviser mentioned that the requirement reduced the number of positive spots that the producer can have. Other candidates, however, regard it as an opportunity to affirm or encapsulate the theme of their message: "I'm Tom Kean, Jr. Together, we can break the back of corruption. That's why I approved this message."
Use outside campaign advertising[edit]
Although rarely noted by pundits during the course of congressional debate, the provision became one of the most recognized—and joked about—changes in the content of television ads.
Several politicians have made references to the phrase in aspects of their campaign outside radio or television advertising. In the 2006 elections, Senator Joseph Lieberman declared "I approve this election" in his acceptance speech, following his victory as a third-party candidate (Connecticut for Lieberman). Just before the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton made news by announcing that "she did not approve this message" in reference to the John McCain campaign using clips of her attacking Barack Obama during the Democratic primaries.[citation needed] [3]
References
 Bishop, Wes Hickmanor Kevin. "Graham, Wyden Seek to Expand "Stand by Your Ad" Provisions of New Campaign Finance Law". United States Senator Lindsey Graham. Retrieved 2023-09-16.
 BeVier, Lillian R. (2004-06). "McConnell v. FEC: Not Senator Buckley's First Amendment". Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. 3 (2): 127–145. doi:10.1089/153312904322907676. ISSN 1533-1296. : Check date values in: |date= (help)
 "She Does Not Approve This Message - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. 2008-08-25. Retrieved 2023-09-16.
Regina.valensia (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding additional information to existing sections