Congress needs English majors

Apparently we Americans need to elect a few English majors to Congress. Either that or create such positions on congressional staffs.

The problem is dramatically illustrated in the current television campaigns by U.S. Senator Dan Sullivan and his challenger Dr. Al Gross.

Both men give brief statements about their candidacies in their television spots and then are required by federal law to give their names and add: “I approve of this message.”

Since the words come out of their own mouths, it seems safe to assume that they approve of what they just said. The nonsensical addendums to their spots are required under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

It’s called the “Stand by Your Ad” provision of the reform act. The purpose of the provision was to avoid the problem of less responsible candidates using unattributed accusations against their opponents.

Good grief. The intent of the measure is good, but the result is downright silliness. And since the ads run constantly on television during the campaign, the candidates are obliged to look like idiots virtually every day of the week.

Surely Congress has access to staff people with sufficient ability in the English language to craft something that would eliminate the requirement when the statements are to come out of the mouths of the candidates themselves.

The requirement for approval statements by candidates also applies for radio and television ads by interest groups and political parties when they support individual candidates in upcoming elections.

It was an important part of the reform act, which is better known as the McCain-Feingold Act named for its Senate authors, Arizona Republican John McCain and Wisconsin Democrat Russell Feingold.

The problem it aimed at was an old one. In 1800 allies of President John Adams referred to challenger Thomas Jefferson as “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father”

It took 202 years after the Adams-Jefferson campaign for a law to be passed aimed at outlawing such outrageous personal attacks but the fix is seriously flawed. When candidates like Dan Sullivan and Al Gross must include silly statements endorsing their own spoken words, it seems time to amend the law.

A fix would seem pretty easy. The law’s wording needs to be amended to eliminate the requirement when the words come out of the mouths of the candidates themselves. The candidates should be required to make such statements in ads purchased in support of their candidacies by other individuals or organizations.

The existing provision has a major flaw which will not be easy to fix, if it can be. It applies to ads paid for by a candidate or his campaign organization. Ads run by individuals or organizations in support of a candidate — but not paid for by the candidate — are not affected. And some of the most egregious ads are run by super PACs and shadow organizations whose finances are difficult to impossible to uncover.

That is unfortunate and a fix is not obvious, but surely any congressional staffer proficient in the English language can cobble together wording to eliminate the silliness in the existing law.

And be assured, I approve of this message.