Some cool how to find advertising clients images:
Candidates Have a Legal Right to Lie to Voters
Candidates have a legal right to lie to voters just about as much as they want. And some candidates take their rights very seriously.
False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! — Or Maybe Not
By Brooks Jackson
June 3, 2004 (Updated May 10, 2007)
Here’s a fact that may surprise you: Candidates have a legal right to lie to voters just about as much as they want.
That comes as a shock to many. After all, consumers have been protected for decades from false ads for commercial products. Shouldn’t there be "truth-in-advertising" laws to protect voters, too?
Turns out, that’s a tougher question than you might imagine.
For one thing, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech," and that applies to candidates for office especially. And secondly, in the few states that have enacted laws against false political ads, they haven’t been very effective.
Bogus Psychics & Twirling Ballerina Dolls
Laws protecting consumers from false advertising of products are enforced pretty vigorously. For example, the Federal Trade Commission took action in 2002 to protect the public from the self-proclaimed psychic "Miss Cleo," who the FTC said promised free readings over the phone and then socked her gullible clients with enormous telephone charges. The FTC even forced a toy company a while back to stop running ads showing its "Bouncin’ Kid Ballerina Kid" doll standing alone and twirling gracefully without human assistance, which the FTC said was video hokum.
Federal Communications Act
(U.S. Code: Title 47, Sec. 315. – Candidates for public office)
(a) … If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section.
But there’s no such truth-in-advertising law governing federal candidates. They can legally lie about almost anything they want. In fact, the Federal Communications Act even requires broadcasters who run candidate ads to show them uncensored, even if the broadcasters believe their content to be offensive or false.
This is taken very seriously. In a 1972 case, the Federal Communications Commission forced stations in Atlanta, Ga., to accept a paid political ad from J.B. Stoner — a self-proclaimed "white racist" running for the U.S. Senate on the National States Rights party ticket. The NAACP objected to Stoner’s ad because it said the "main reason why niggers want integration is because niggers want our white women." The FCC sided with Stoner, citing freedom of speech decisions of the Supreme Court.
Stations can reject ads for any reason from political groups other than candidates. And they may reject ads from all candidates for a given office. But if they take ads from one candidate, they can’t legally refuse ads from opponents except for technical reasons (such as being too long or short to fit standard commercial breaks, or if the recording quality is poor) or if they are "obscene." Rejecting a candidate’s ad because it’s false is simply not allowed.
So what gives? Surely the public stands to suffer more damage from a presidential candidate lying about his opponent than from a bogus psychic. Isn’t the process of choosing the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet a more important matter than whether some doll really does what the TV ads show?
Yes. But …
The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
For one thing, the First Amendment guarantee of free speech poses a big obstacle to enacting or enforcing such laws — which it should. The very idea of self-government rests on the idea that voters — given enough uncensored information — can best decide who should be in power and who should not. So free speech applies first and foremost to candidates. As the U.S. Supreme Court said unanimously in a 1971 libel case, "It can hardly be doubted that the constitutional guarantee [of free speech] has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office."
So states have found it hard to enact laws against false political advertising — and even harder to make them work.
Minnesota: The Case of the Furloughed Rapist
Example: In a 1994 House race in Minnesota, Republican candidate Tad Jude ran an emotion-packed ad against Democrat William Luther in the final weekend of the race.
It was reminiscent of the notorious "Willie Horton" ads run against Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election. In the Jude ad, the candidate cited the case of a woman and two daughters who were kidnapped and raped repeatedly over two days by a man who had been released from prison on a furlough.
The False Ad That Couldn’t Be Outlawed
Announcer: In 1990, a Minnesota woman and her two daughters were abducted and repeatedly raped over a two-day ordeal. Despite two prior convictions, the perpetrator, Daniel Patten, was out of prison on a weekend furlough.
Patten may never have been released and this crime never committed had legislation authored by Tad Jude been enacted. But Jude’s bill was stopped by Bill Luther and his liberal friends in the Minnesota Senate. Bill Luther’s willingness to set violent criminals free is putting every woman in Minnesota in danger. Sending him to Congress would be a crime.
Jude’s ad claimed the rapist "may never have been released and this crime never committed" if Democrat Luther, a state senator, had not blocked a bill sponsored by Republican Jude, who was also a state senator. "Sending [Luther] to Congress would be a crime," it concluded.
The ad was false. Even if Jude’s proposed legislation had been enacted, it could not possibly have prevented the crime it described. Reason: Jude’s bill would have applied only to persons imprisoned for offenses committed on or after August 1, 1987, and the convict mentioned in the ad had been sentenced in 1983.
Jude lost the election, but the ad may have had an effect. His losing margin was only 549 votes out of more than 200,000 cast.
It was Jude’s misfortune, however, to live in one of the very few states that outlaws false political advertising. A special prosecutor presented the case to a grand jury, which indicted Jude and his campaign manager. A conviction could have led to a year in jail and a ,000 fine.
Problems with Enforcement
The trial judge later threw the case out, however, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the indictment against Jude. In its opinion, the appeals court said that the Minnesota law was too broad, allowing someone to be charged for having only "reason to believe" that an ad they helped prepare was false. The court said that U.S. Supreme Court rulings required a higher standard: evidence of "actual malice."
To convict, prosecutors would have to prove Jude either knew the ad was false or acted with "reckless disregard" for whether it was true or not. That would have been a tough job; Jude had testified to the grand jury that he was under the false impression that the ad was true, that the rapist named in the ad had been convicted later of a second offense that would have made him subject to the legislation he had proposed. So Jude went free and, in fact, ran against Luther a second time in 1996. That time Luther won with nearly 56 percent of the vote.
The case exposes two problems with relying on truth-in-advertising laws to protect voters from campaign falsehoods. First, prosecutors can’t move quickly enough to cure the damage caused by a last-minute, false attack. Jude wasn’t indicted until more than a year after the election that he almost won. And second, under the "actual malice" standard a candidate could lie profusely in ads and still get away with it by claiming he or she thought the ads were true, so long as no convincing evidence surfaced to the contrary.
Washington State: The Case of the Killer Ophthalmologists
Washington state also ran into problems trying to enforce its truth-in-political-advertising law after a 1991 ballot referendum fight. At issue was a proposed "death with dignity" law. A group opposed to it, the "119 Vote No! Committee," issued a leaflet saying that if the proposal passed it "WOULD LET DOCTORS END PATIENTS’ LIVES WITHOUT BENEFIT OF SAFEGUARDS . . . No special qualifications– your eye doctor could kill you."
The ballot proposition failed, and the state’s Public Disclosure Commission brought an action charging the 119 Committee with violating state law against false political advertising. The commission said the proposition did contain standards and it was false to say it would open the door to killer ophthalmologists. But the trial court dismissed the charges in this case, too, and the Washington State Supreme Court later struck down the law under which the committee had been charged.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion questioned whether state government officials had any right to substitute their judgment for that of the voters in matters of political speech. Quoting earlier court opinions, it said:
Instead of relying on the State to silence false political speech, the First Amendment requires our dependence on even more speech to bring forth truth. … The First Amendment exists precisely to protect against laws such as [the Washington state truth-in-advertising law] which suppress ideas and inhibit free discussion of governmental affairs.
The Washington court wasn’t unanimous. A judge who dissented complained that the majority had become "the first court in the history of the Republic to declare First Amendment protection for calculated lies" and said that his fellow judges were "shockingly oblivious to the increasing nastiness of modern political campaigns."
At least one other state is enforcing a law against bogus campaign ads. But voters shouldn’t take much comfort from that, as the following case study shows.
Ohio: The Case of the Lying Treasurer
Ohio’s law has been tested in the courts and has survived, and the Ohio Elections Commission looks into 30 to 40 complaints each year, according to its executive director, Philip C. Richter.
Taft’s False Ad: 1998
Announcer: The men and women of law enforcement — they want a governor who is tough on crime. Ohio’s police have endorsed Bob Taft for governor — and rejected Lee Fisher.
Our law officers back Bob Taft to expand Ohio’s drug courts and hold violent juveniles more accountable.
And Lee Fisher? As attorney general, Fisher cut crime-fighting employees by 15 percent, while increasing his PR budget to million.
Bob Taft for governor. That’s how it gets done.
And the seven-member, bipartisan Elections Commission takes its job seriously, as demonstrated in a 1998 case involving a false TV commercial run by the Republican candidate for governor, Bob Taft, against his Democratic opponent, Lee Fisher.
The ad appeared Sept. 18. Fisher complained to the commission, which held hearings and decided the matter less than a month after the ad first aired — astonishing speed to anyone familiar with the usual pace of election-law enforcement. Richter told FactCheck.org that the commission wanted to decide the matter before voters went to the polls, and it met that deadline with more than two weeks to spare.
On Oct. 16 the commission announced its decision. By what it called "clear and convincing evidence" it ruled that the Taft ad violated Ohio’s law against false statements. The ad claimed Fisher, who had been the state’s attorney general, "cut crime-fighting employees by 15 percent," when in fact the number of credentialed investigators actually increased from 214 to 231 during his four-year tenure. Also, the Taft ad claimed "Ohio’s police have endorsed Bob Taft … and rejected Lee Fisher." Actually, the state’s Fraternal Order of Police had been split over its endorsement of Taft, and it didn’t represent all of "Ohio’s police" in any event.
But Taft paid no real penalty for the false ad, except for some unfavorable publicity. The Elections Commission issued only a letter of reprimand to Taft’s campaign treasurer and his campaign organization. The commission has no power to levy fines. In rare cases it forwards complaints to a prosecutor for possible criminal proceedings, but it didn’t do that in the Taft case. Taft went on to win the election easily.
Contrast this nearly toothless Ohio law with what the Federal Trade Commission was able to extract from Miss Cleo, who agreed to pay a million penalty to the government and also to give up claims of more than 0 million (yes, half a billion dollars) against her former "clients."
"Convicted of Lying?"
As if to underscore the futility of using government to regulate truth in politics, The Associated Press quoted Fisher’s campaign manager, Alan Melamed, after the commission’s decision was announced as saying: "Bob Taft has found his place in history. … He’s the first candidate for governor to be convicted of lying." That itself was a false statement. The commission specifically rejected Fisher’s complaints against Taft personally, and it has no power to "convict," a word that implies criminal violations.
And so it goes. All this should tell voters that — legally — it’s pretty much up to them to sort out who’s lying and who’s not in a political campaign. Nobody said democracy was supposed to be easy.
It is, of course, the job of news organizations to assist; that’s why the First Amendment guarantees a free press as well as free speech. We at FactCheck.org try hard to help. But on Election Day, it’s up to you.
Source: Jackson, Brooks. "False Ads: There Oughta Be A Law! — Or Maybe Not." FactCheck.org. 3 Jun. 2004, Updated 10 May, 2007. <http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/false_ads_there_oughta_be_a_law.html>
Beware a market research company called Toluna (Test & Vote)
I am posting this to warn you about this company called Toluna. They are a market research firm that conducts polls and surveys for their clients.
I came across them via an ad on Facebook. They were advertising "Try out products for free", and I like trying out products, so I completely fell for it and registered with them. I felt a bit stupid about it even then, and it turns out my gut feeling was completely right.
It turns out this company entices you to do market research work for them basically for free, by baiting you with offers and promises that they don’t keep. Of course, there are a number of fraudsters that do this kind of stuff, but usually you can tell if they are a fraud right from the beginning. However, Toluna’s furtiveness in this regard is such that I am taking the time to write about this and warn you about them.
The bottom line is: you’re not going to lose money, but you’re going to lose a lot of time if you fall for them. But the worst part is the feeling of being lied to, being deceived and cheated upon. I’d like to spare you this experience, so bear with me.
Their business model is as follows: you register with them, and they will invite you to answer various polls and surveys for their clients. As a reward, you get a number of points, depending on how long the survey/poll takes to answer. You can then take those points and exchange them a) for lottery tickets or b) for Amazon vouchers. It sounded like a good deal: answer some surveys, and get stuff from Amazon. Count me in!
I got an average of five to ten such invitations per week (guessing off the top of my head now). In the beginning, I was very curious, so I actually answered most of these surveys. They were usually big-market mass-consumption products and services, such as branded foods and telecommunications services.
One of the very first surveys I answered was about a well-known Italian coffee maker who were deciding on a name for a new product they were going to release to the market. I found it very interesting to get this kind of look behind the scenes, and to take part in deciding the new name for a product. Of course, they had already decided on a selection of candidates for the name – I didn’t get to submit my own names 🙂 –, but still, when do you get to choose a name for a new product that will sell worldwide? So – I was hooked and kept going back to the surveys.
Unfortunately, after the first few interesting surveys, the quality of the surveys declined sharply. Now, there was just pretty mindless and typical market research stuff, the kind of which bores you to tears before you’ve even done 10% of it. Usually, these surveys were exceptionally long and took up to half an hour to complete. I was beginning to doubt I should be putting this much time into the matter.
(As an aside, many of the surveys were full of bugs and errors, the kind of which I just can’t ignore as a communications designer. Some of these were downright stupid, some were irritating. I took some screenshots even: flickr.com/search/?q=survey&w=87569910@N00 . It struck me that, instead of providing a unified interface for all these surveys, Toluna would just re-direct to the client, each of whom would provide their very own survey interface. After having seen about ten different such interfaces, I began to wonder if it was customary for designers of online surveys to ignore everything there was to know about user interface design on the web. Some of them actually bothered to jump through all kinds of hoops to make their own proprietary form elements, instead of just using standard HTML forms.)
To make matters worse, I was getting many invites to surveys that were obviously not addressing me. Usually, when you begin a survey, there are a couple of questions to find out if you’re part of the target audience. If you’re not, the survey ends and you get no reward points.
Fair enough, but usually I had already answered quite a lot of questions, giving out personal information which is extremely valuable for market researchers, before being told that I didn’t "fit in". To me, it seemed like a scam: grab my personal info off me, and then tell me to bugger off. We just took your data, but no, you’re not getting any reward.
Sometimes, they would just kick me out because "the number of participants had already been reached". Fine, but why do they make me answer part of the survey and then suddenly find out they already have enough of them? Things were starting to smell rather fishy.
After a couple of months, I had completed a considerable number of surveys, and the majority of them kicked me out after taking my info. Those that didn’t were long-winded and boring. I was losing interest rather acutely. Now that I had given Toluna so much of my time, I wanted a reward. I checked up on the points I had accumulated, happily looking forward to the promised Amazon voucher.
But alas, I found out it would need 80,000 points to get a 20 € voucher. I had something like 20,000 points, equalling around 5 hours of survey-completing work. Let me quickly do the numbers: 1 hour of filling out forms = ~4000 points. 80,000 points = 20 € = 20 hours of doing surveys. I was doing work for them at 1€ an hour.
I decided this wasn’t worth it, and I was not going to do a zillion more surveys to get my Amazon voucher. Instead, I opted for the lottery tickets. I would get a bunch of them, so my chances of actually winning something wouldn’t be too bad (I thought). I exchanged all my points for tickets. They told me they would send them to me.
So what about those product tests they talked about when they enticed me to register with them? I had to confirm my interest in those tests on their website, which I did. I selected those categories of products I would be interested in. A selected, small number of products would be sent to random testers. I wasn’t betting on my chances of actually being sent a product for testing, and certainly I never received any. But now I’m thinking nobody who registered with Toluna probably ever received anything.
A couple of months later, I have never received a single ticket. My points are gone. I am still getting something like 10 requests a week to complete surveys.
They took my data and sold it to a couple of big-money companies. I got no reward. I feel lied to and cheated upon.
Today, I deleted my account. I have no idea what they are going to do with my personal data.
I got this e-mail confirmation (screenshot above), and it says it will take them a couple of weeks to delete my account. They must be joking: deleting an account is a database operation that takes a fraction of a second.
To me, Toluna is a scam operation. Don’t fall for them. I’ve certainly learned my lesson.
Pass this on to your friends to warn them if you think they’d fall into Toluna’s clutches.
Using Google Places to Find Sales Prospects
Do you use Google Places to prospect for new business? You can find numerous companies in different cities that fit your ideal client, all with a simple search.