Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: “It’s just not possible”
Next Post: Here we go again
Posted in:
* Lasalle NewsTribune…
Neck-deep into this political season of flying mud, campaign propaganda is flooding mailboxes in the Illinois Valley.
The leaflets are colorful in language and graphics. Some of their claims are easily fact-checked and others are so outrageous as to be undeserving of fact-checking. Most are sent by political groups, not the candidates.
A bulk of the fliers target candidates in the race for District 76 state representative.
Andy Skoog (D-La Salle) is challenged by Jerry Long, a Republican from Streator. Two years ago, Long challenged Frank Mautino (D-Spring Valley) and lost by 337 votes. Last year, after Mautino was picked in December as state auditor general, La Salle circuit clerk Skoog was appointed to replace him as state representative.
Too wrong to even be false
Source: Illinois Republican Party
Claim — “Skoog took $16,000-plus from groups who bankrolled a politician guilty of horrific sex crimes against children.”
Misleading — This claim is nearly unworthy of being fact-checked. The advertisement alleges Andy Skoog received campaign contributions from sources that also contributed money to Rep. Keith Farnham (D-Elgin) before Farnham was convicted in 2015 of trading images of child pornography. The flier does not mention Farnham by name but it’s well understood that Farnham is who they are talking about. Farnham served five years as a state representative and, expectedly, received campaign donations.This mailer is claiming that after Farnham’s arrest in 2014 and conviction in 2015, his allegedly crooked donors looked for other sleazy politicians to fund and landed on Andy Skoog. This vaporous connection also has been used in ads against Mike Mathis of Gillespie, a Democrat running for the House seat in District 95, and Rep. John Bradley (D-Marion). Bradley donated $1,000 to Farnham — three years before Farnham was arrested, according to the Chicago Tribune.
I’ve always believed that the content of mailers should be treated as if they came from the candidates’ own mouths. And candidates shouldn’t be able to hide behind the fact that state parties often pay for these mailers. The parties pay for them mainly because state parties get a discount on postage. I would love to see a reform which forces these party mailers to include a statement from the candidate being supported that he or she “approves” of the message.
* Anyway, some media outlets do a good job on this particular topic, most, though, often choose to ignore candidate advertising. If you continue reading the above fact-check, you’ll see a very long list of insane mailers in that district. You may quibble here and there with how the paper judges them, but it’s mostly very solid and thorough work.
Kudos.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:03 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: “It’s just not possible”
Next Post: Here we go again
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
If more media fact-checked mailers, that would deter some of the more outrageous whoppers told by both parties. Right now there is almost no fact-checking by most newspapers.
Comment by anon Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:23 pm
If you think that is bad you should see the goings on in the Lasalle County States Attorney’s race.
Comment by Trolling Troll Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:36 pm
===the goings on in the Lasalle County States Attorney’s race===
Somebody sent me a photo of that “Takedown Brian Towne” trailer with all the scurrilous stuff about the guy.
Whew, man.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:39 pm
They were using it as a float in some of the parades. Howzer!
Comment by Trolling Troll Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:42 pm
It would be useful for voters if a law were passed requiring that mailers like these must be printed on Charmin.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:55 pm
Instead of saying “I approve this message”. How about saying “after fact checking, I approve this message”?
Comment by Casual observer Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:57 pm
=== I would love to see a reform which forces these party mailers to include a statement from the candidate being supported that he or she “approves” of the message. ===
Prohibited per Citizens United.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 3:06 pm
Candidates can send their own mailers if they’re not pleased with the ones coming from the state party. I am still baffled as to why there appears to be next to zero targeting taking place given the sheer number of mailers coming into my household.
Comment by TaxesBuyCivilization Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:00 pm
in an otherwise pretty good year for Republican messaging using huge sums to tie all dem candidates to the unpopular Madigan, the Farnham gambit was a mistake….it earned some dem candidates a lot of sympathy and had a reverse effect. Maybe it was fair in the eye for an eye world we live in but it was just too much of a stretch.
Comment by Factoid Thursday, Oct 27, 16 @ 12:24 am