It’s disconcerting when the party in power uses taxpayer funds to convince voters that the current Administration’s policies are better than their opponents. Attempts to convince voters of the merits of a given public policy should be debated among political parties — not bureaucracies.
Sorry to see Andy selling out this way. I thought he had some sense.
This should count as consumer fraud.
Our tax dollars are paying for this? Why is this legal?
It’s disconcerting when the party in power uses taxpayer funds to convince voters that the current Administration’s policies are better than their opponents. Attempts to convince voters of the merits of a given public policy should be debated among political parties — not bureaucracies.
Devon, I defy you to name a single administration that hasn’t sponsored public service ad touting the wonders of various government programs.
artk, maybe we need a consumer protection agency to protect us from false and misleading propaganda paid for with our own money.
Matlock is lying.
Apparently the ad campaign is costing taxpayers $700,000. See Letter from Republican Senators objecting here: http://www.ncpathinktank.org/pdfs/letter-to-Secretary-Sebelius-on-CMS.pdf
Does anyone know how many dollars are being spent by those opposed to the legislation trying to demonize it? Tea anyone?
The latest fallout over the Andy Griffith campaign is today’s Charles Hurt “Inside Washington” column in the NY Post:
http://bit.ly/bpYUpF