Hey Guys - This is totally off topic, but I need to make a very quick decision, and I need some impartial opinions like right away.

I publish a magazine.

We do not allow negative advertising by political candidates.

One candidate wants to put this statement in their ad. They are running against an incumbent for County Commission Chairman:
"According to the Georgia Department of Revenue Tax Digest, property taxes in Douglas County have increased by over 60% since 2005."

They do not mention the incumbent by name. But he took office at the end of 2004 (I think)

Is this a negative ad? I have to decide right away whether to reject it or allow it. We go to press soon. Please help :)

That depends a lot on how you're defining negative advertising. If you're in charge, that's up to you. If your boss has a say in this I'd say don't allow it, it's too much of a grey area, not worth risking getting yourself in hot water over. From a purely definitional standpoint, it's advertising, it's political, and it's negative/critical. Failure to mention the incumbent by name doesn't change any of that.

From my personal perspective, if you're in in charge, it's ok. I don't even think not mentioning the incumbent by name is important here. In general, if I'm in charge of a policy like this, what I really want to avoid isn't negative advertising, per se. It's mudslinging. This ad contains nothing personal or irrelevant to the election. It contains only verifiable statistical facts. What I'd prefer to see, personally, is an actual number for property taxes in 2005 and at present, but even so this would pass the smell test for me.

Another way of looking at it is this (and again, this is assuming that you personally are reasonably safe, from a career perspective, no matter what decision you make): if the incumbent wanted to publish his verifiable political record himself, you'd certainly allow it. So it seems reasonably fair that his opposition should be able to publish it as well. Although this does lead into new grey areas in other elections, IE shouldn't an opposition candidate be able to characterize and publish the incumbent's voting record, which can for various reasons get deeper into the mudslinging regime at least by implication. So maybe this doesn't clarify anything after all.

Yeah - My job is safe - I own the magazine. But I also tell all candidates that we do not allow negative advertising, so does this fall into that category? I did verify that the numbers are correct.

Hey there fellow Georgian!

Hello - So, what do you think? This has me super stressed because I try to be really fair and impartial.

Well. If it is an accurate data point without further murky interpretation that is verifiable from a neutral source, it could be ok - just be prepared for others to use the precedent.

I don't think it's negative in the traditional sense in that it does not attack a candidate, uses verifiable facts, etc.
That said, if the goal is only to have candidates tout themselves (I.e., vote for me, candidate B, because I promise/am good at/have accomplished XYZ), then this would be outside those bounds and a negative ad as it is highlighting what would be viewed as a negative situation.

the same ad could be reworded as: vot for me, I plan to reduce property taxes

I think if it makes you uncomfortable you ought to not run it.

Really appreciate all of the input! Keep it coming. Have to make a decision soon. These thoughts definitely help.

The wording of the proposed ad itself is carefully not overtly negative against the other candidate, but it also isn't necessarily fair and it is certainly not complete information. For instance, why has the property tax risen? Are there now better services paid for by the increased tax base? We don't know, and can't tell, from that ad, so it paints a negative picture...

If it's the truth, it isn't negative advertising .

I would say allow it if (1) it's true, (2) it doesn't mention the opposing candidate by name, and (3) it is a prelude to some sort of claim about how this candidate will lower property taxes. (3) is important for me, because without that, it's just an attack on the status quo. With that, it's a "here's a problem, here's how I fix it," which is a positive ad. JMO

I really appreciate it. I think I came up with a solution. Here's what I said:

Hey ________,

I am kind of worried and torn about the ad because I have told everyone that we don’t have negative advertising in the magazine but I have an idea. I don’t want anyone to feel like I have been unfair to them or that I have gone back on my word. My dilemma is whether or not the statement about the property taxes is actually negative advertising.

First, just so you know, I actually posted a question about the wording of the second statement on a message board of this online basketball league I am in, because these are people that do not live in this area. Here is what I posted and the responses.

Then I copied and pasted what you guys said on the message board.
hen I continued with this:

Anyway, I have an idea. Is Roy planning to reduce the Millage rate to the 2005 levels? If this is the case, could we make the statement read like this:

"According to the Georgia Department of Revenue Tax Digest, property taxes in Douglas County have increased by over 60% since 2005.. Let’s work together to roll back property taxes to the 2005 rates.”

This fits in with the first statement about working together to fill the vacancies, and it turns the statement into a positive statement instead of a negative statement standing alone. ((FYI for the forum readers I am referring to the other statement he made in the ad, about filling vacancies in the fire department and EMS in which he said "Let's work together to fill these vacancies")

I am sorry to be so difficult with this. My reputation for keeping my word is super important to me, and I don’t want to have anyone feel like I did not follow through with what I have said.

Please let me know how that sounds, or if there is something along these lines that could be done.

Thanks so much,

Tim

Posted by tarvolon on 4/21/2016 6:02:00 PM (view original):
I would say allow it if (1) it's true, (2) it doesn't mention the opposing candidate by name, and (3) it is a prelude to some sort of claim about how this candidate will lower property taxes. (3) is important for me, because without that, it's just an attack on the status quo. With that, it's a "here's a problem, here's how I fix it," which is a positive ad. JMO

LOL - we must have been typing at the same time!