10 comments

  1. Erick says:

    As I noted with the Guy Drexinger ads, these are political use ads and a television station has no ability to refuse to air the spots if they have available space and have no ability to take down the spots based on their content.

    It’s a great political stunt to get attention, but Wiggins has no shot at either getting the ads taken down or punishing the stations airing the ads.

    Case closed.

  2. Erick, be honest. The question about the Drexinger ads wasn’t content related, it was merely access related. And the law was clearly on the side of the Democratic Party which is entitled to run response ads to Oxendine that are multi-candidate and feature the insurance commissioner’s race.

    Now as for Wiggans, everything in the ad is backed up by affidavits and court documents. Wiggans may not like the tone of his ad, but maybe he shouldn’t have gotten sued by his mother (even if it was dismissed) and shouldn’t have threatened his sister (still waiting on a rebuttal on that one).

  3. Erick says:

    Chris, you are obscuring my point, so I’ll restate it.

    Regardless of the veracity of Hunstein’s ads, the ads are considered “political use” ads pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations sections dealing with political candidate advertising.

    Because they are “political use” ads, television stations with available air time cannot refuse to run the ad and cannot object to the ad based on the content of the ad.

    So, whether you agree or disagree with the ads or have problems with the veracity of the ads, there is nothing that Wiggins or anyone else can do to have the ads pulled or the stations punished.

    Being responses to Oxendine or anything else is not relevant to the central point.

  4. Well, anyway we can agree that Wiggans attempt is ridiculous. Honestly, is this guy even qualified to be Supreme Court justice if he doesn’t understand something as easy to understand as election law? Pretty lame if you ask me.

  5. SpaceyG says:

    It never ceases to amaze me that there are people out there who have yet to realize that TV is fake. ALL of it. Read more, well, you know where.

  6. Bill Simon says:

    Chris & Erick,

    In actuality, TV stations CAN, apparently, refuse to show political ads they deem violate some standards.

    In 2002, right about this same timeframe, I remember WSBTV’s wussy’ass general manager agreeing with Roy Barnes’ request to take down the Perdue ad that demolished Barnes on his comment regarding “Children die every day…” during a debate.

    So, unless rules have changed since 2002, it is still up to the discretion of the station to do anything they damn well please.

  7. I believe the issue in 2002 was over using the WSB clip in an ad. As far as Wiggans goes, everything in the ad is from court documents. If it wasn’t or isn’t true, well then tell it to the judge. Too bad it won’t be him.

Comments are closed.