Home
About us
Research
Databases
Publications
Jobs
Site Map
Internal Pages

MRC LMB
MRC DUNN
Hutchison/MRC
CIMR


Spin Out Companies
Avidis
Domantis

MRC Technology Transfer

EU TMR Research Network


Nike Vapormax Dark Red

Nike Vapormax Dark Red

Court ruling offers insight into campaign decisions

The Iowa Supreme Court last week confirmed what most of us already knew: People who run for office have to put on their big boy pants and withstand negative political attacks without help from the courts.The court's ruling, however, offers some rare insight into the decisions the candidates and those associated with their campaigns made, leading up to the airing of a misleading attack ad.State Sen. Rick Bertrand, a Republican, had won a $231,000 jury award after successfully suing his Democratic opponent, Rick Mullin, and the Iowa Democratic Party for defamation over a political ad run in 2010. Bertrand, who won the election that year, claimed the ad was untrue and damaged his reputation.The ad was a classic "guilt by association" attack on Bertrand, a Sioux City businessman who had worked as a sales agent for a Japanese pharmaceutical company. The ad implied, but did not state, that Bertrand had been involved in the company's controversial marketing of a sleeping pill to children. Bertrand said he had worked for another division of the company that sold a diabetes drug, and that he never marketed or sold the sleep aid.The Iowa Supreme Court ruled on appeal that Bertrand failed to prove that Mullin and the Democrats acted with actual malice in airing the ad. As a candidate for office, Bertrand was a public figure and as such must Herrklocka Omega

meet a higher legal standard to win a defamation claim. Mullin and the party were off the hook since there was no proof they knew or recklessly disregarded the truth that Bertrand had nothing to do with marketing the sleeping pill to kids.THE REGISTER'S EDITORIAL: Voters best judges of ad fairnessBertrand said earlier this year Omega Klocka Bond

and offended him. Additionally, his internal polling revealed the advertisement was causing him to lose support. His campaign manager told him: 'Bertrand hit you hard. Hit him back harder.' " Candidate misgivings: Mullin was clearly uncomfortable with a draft of the script for the ad against Bertrand. He found it too harsh and inconsistent with the positive tenor of his campaign. Mullin told state party staff: "Can't we find a way to be derisive/dismissive of Bertrand's negative attack and then pivot to our positive message? I really don't like the positioning of me in this, and it buys into Bertrand's frame. Let's bust out of his frame and keep positive." What Mullin didn't do is inquire whether Bertrand actually sold or marketed sleeping pills. Ad airs anyway: Mullin apparently bought into the argument that the attack was warranted and necessary. He referred to a rewrite of the script as "less vile." Eventually, he approved a script and the ad first aired on Oct. 17. Aftermath: When Bertrand complained publicly at a candidate forum the ad was false, and then filed a defamation claim, his objections were dismissed as a political tactic. Mullin didn't stop running the ad, which the Supreme Court seemed to find understandable. "A candidate does not purposely avoid the truth if the truth is buried in political grandstanding and rhetoric," Cady's opinion states.What I see here is a candidate allowing his campaign and party staff to goad him into retaliation, setting aside his better instincts for a positive campaign and lowering his standards about acceptable messaging. The "victim," Bertrand, drew fire by launching an attack first. Then, he responded to it in such a typically political manner as to make even a chief justice shrug.So, where does that leave us? Back where we started. Candidates who launch attacks have little room to complain when the response is an even more vicious attack. Candidates who want to run a positive campaign can't allow campaign or party staff to overrule their good judgment.We can't assume that just because an ad is on television with the candidate's approval, that he or she has bothered to ask whether it is true. The only court that is going to rule on campaign ads is still the court of public opinion. It will still be Nike Vapormax Dark Red up to voters to use good judgment.

Nike Vapormax Dark Red

Nike Vapormax Dark Red

Nike Vapormax Dark Red

Nike Vapormax Dark Red

Nike Vapormax Dark Red

he hoped the Supreme Court would seize the opportunity to clean up politics by ending the "anything goes" attitude toward attack ads. The court is not ready to referee these disputes, however.The opinion by Chief Justice Mark Cady describes a number of decisions that led up to the airing of the ad and in particular shows the influence of campaign staff over the candidate. Retaliation: Bertrand had aired an attack ad in October 2010 that compared Mullin's positions on issues to those he had taken as a county party chairman. "The advertisement made Mullin angry Rolex Klocka Dam 1972 Pris

Nike Vapormax Dark Red

Nike Vapormax Dark Red

Nike Vapormax Dark Red

Nike Vapormax Dark Red

Nike Vapormax Dark Red

Nike Air Vapormax Style

Omega Geneve Ny
Omega Herrklocka Vintage
Nike Air Vapormax Flyknit Black

Nike Air Vapormax Pure Platinum

Air Vapormax Nike

Nike Vapormax Ladies

Nike Vapormax Flyknit On Foot

Rolex Watch Price
Nike Air Vapormax Chukka Slip White

Rolex Datejust Guld Stål
Nike Vapormax Pure White

Rolex Svart
Best Nike Vapormax Chukka Shoes

Nike Air Vapormax New

Home / Nike Vapormax Dark Red


Copyright © CPE 2002

Centre for Protein Engineering
MRC Centre, Hills Rd
Cambridge, UK, CB2 2QH
cpeweb@mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk

powered by MacOSX Server