The following Press Release was emailed by the Gary Johnson for President campaign in regards to the recent omission of Jesse Ventura’s endorsement on CNN.
Friends,
Censored again.
A few days ago, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura was interviewed by CNN, and offered strong words of support for Governor Johnson. But…when CNN posted the interview to their website, Gov. Ventura’s remarks about Gov. Johnson were mysteriously missing, as reported by the Daily Caller.
Is anyone surprised?
It is no secret that the mainstream media is fully invested in the tired Republican-Democrat party duopoly. And this certainly isn’t the first time CNN has “excluded” Governor Johnson. Remember the debates last year? Despite polling as well as other candidates who were invited, CNN refused to allow Gov. Johnson on the stage for any of the presidential debates they sponsored.
We’ve known from the very beginning that we could never depend on the elite media alone to communicate with the voters we need to reach. Congressman Ron Paul has been fighting this battle for years, and if anything, Gov. Johnson’s message of liberty and fiscal sanity is even more “uncomfortable” for the business-as-usual crowd.
Yes, we must take our message directly to the voters – without relying upon news media executives in New York, Washington or Atlanta. And Governor Johnson needs your help to do that.
Just yesterday, we finished work on two radio spots that are ready to go on the air. You can listen to the first onehere. And you may have already seen this web video: Be libertarian With Me. More than 35,000 people have already viewed it – imagine if 350,000 could see it. You can make that happen by going to www.garyjohnson2012.comtoday and making a contribution that will help us put these spots on the air and spread our videos far and wide.
We have worked very hard, with your generous help, to lay the groundwork for a campaign that will shake the worn-out two party system to its core. Just this week, yet another poll was released showing Governor Johnson already having a significant impact in an important state. And that is without a single penny’s worth of paid media advertising, compared to the millions spent by Obama and Romney.
When the advertising we are producing right now goes on the air, not only will we reach voters we need to reach, but even CNN will have to take note that our message will not be censored and will be a part of this presidential campaign whether they like it or not.
But that won’t happen without the funding to purchase the airtime. Please go to www.garyjohnson2012.com and contribute $20, $50, $100 or whatever you can. With your support, we can take Gov. Johnson’s message of liberty, individual freedom and smaller government to millions of Americans in the weeks ahead.
Let’s make it clear that we will NOT be censored!
Thanks, as always, for your generous support. We are on the move!
Ron Nielson
Senior Advisor
Gary Johnson 2012
P.S. Everyone who has watched or listened to our new spots has said the same thing: WE HAVE TO GET THESE ON THE AIR. You can make that possible by going to www.garyjohnson2012.com today.
Protest is good, and I’m happy to see it, but it’s unlikely to make debate inclusion happen.
My point exactly.
@18 I’m sure they’ll be able to raise additional funds outside of the earmarked funds.
It may be that by advertising with 100% of the earmarked funds raised, the total amount of non-earmarked funds raised will be greater than what they can raise in total if they don’t earmark and guarantee for advertising.
Zapper @17,
“100% of the earmarked funds must go to advertising. There must be no deductions for fundraising expenses, office expenses or staff costs. The earmarked advertising funds must be excluded from any contract computation that is used to pay contrators or staff.”
The problem with that is that the Johnson campaign probably has limited control of how its money is spent, given that it entered the Libertarian side of the races with ~$150k in prior debt. It can’t honestly advertise that 100% of some future income will go to X when there are outstanding debts on Y that it may be ordered by a court to pay.
My personal take on the advertising issue is this:
1) The Johnson campaign for a time had no public plan to advertise, so I proposed a plan that would give the campaign the chance to use leverage through targeted advertising that would generate free media worth far beyond the advertising cost. It takes guts and vision to attempt such a plan. The Zapper plan offers the best opportunity to break out through paid and earned media.
2) If the campaign had any decent media plan it would be worth supporting vs. doing nothing.
So far they still don’t have one. They just said: “please send some money and we will advertise.” They have offered no plan, and no guarantee that the money raised will actually be spent on advertising. In fact, they have not established any way to measure how much was donated for advertising vs other donations.
Donors can see these flaws and choose not to donate.
3) A decent media plan must include major network broadcast TV in significant amounts. In order to do that, some limited number of targeted markets would have to be used, even if they choose different markets than I would.
4) Many broadcast stations are ALSO carried on Cable TV so that buying the broadcast market results in also running on cable. This is great.
But cable ads alone are NOT effective. They are useful for filling in niches. Cable and radio are nice additions to a target area, but adding these would reduce the total number of target markets the campaign could afford.
However, I have no problem with targeting fewer markets with more funds in each (a minimum of 3 markets) and ADDING radio, cable and yard signs to the mix. This must not reduce the TV broadcast spending in the targeted markets but must be an additional attempt to saturate.
(I would start with ME, WY and AK under such conditions.)
5) For me to get excited about an advertising effort, the Johnson campaign has to set up a segregated fund that allows earmarked donations to be aggregated and accounted for. 100% of the earmarked funds must go to advertising. There must be no deductions for fundraising expenses, office expenses or staff costs. The earmarked advertising funds must be excluded from any contract computation that is used to pay contrators or staff. 100% guaranteed to buy advertising with no fuzzy math.
6) Even though the time is late to begin, I would donate as much as legally possible to such a plan.
Perhaps I am the only one in the world who sees things this way. So be it. Then no one needs my help.
7) Life is full of calculated risk, experiments and learning.
We know that what has been done in the past has failed. We know that what is being offered – repeating the past – will not yield any different results. The only campaign with different results was the only one with a bold, experimental media plan – 5 min spots by Clark 1980.
It was expensive, but brought better results.
Gary Johnson climed Mt. Everest. He took a risk on something new. He might have failed. He tried. He succeeded.
In 2012 we need to do even more with even less.
We can.
Let’s Try something new in advertising.
Then, lets go find the donors to support a bold strategic effort that has a chance for better results.
@10 That is a great idea for a TV spot. Looks like it was never made ready for TV broadcast.
Mark @ 10 — I LOVE that ad! End the Abuse!
I was just taking to zapper on that one in terms of the zapper plan possibly being adjusted based on changes in the way Americans watch TV, specifically getting their broadcast TV channels through cable and dish.
That could conceivably mean that TV news people watching their own stations may see cheaper ads through cable systems broadcasting their networks. Just an idea.
Obviously the campaign does not have to listen to anything we say, however I do know at least some of the campaign folks read IPR and some of the changes – such as the beginnings of project fundraising here and some of the changes in the ads – reflect some of what has been said here. That may be a coincidence because they are likely getting the same feedback elsewhere as well.
No compromise, P, because we’re not in the campaign.
Those are cable. Zapper wants only broadcast network.
Most Americans now get broadcast networks through cable or dish, so it may be possible to compromise here? Dunno.
It’s not. There are many donors who want to target their money for specific projects. They will donate less, or nothing, to a campaign in general. The latest FR is a step in the right direction. More such steps are needed.
I co-wrote one in 2000. 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWtjABVcsMk
@6 2000. Browne and the LNC ran ads.
Michael Badnarik had nationwide ads running on CNN, HNN, and Fox News in 2004. I seen a couple of them run.
youtube?
@5 There has only been one:
Clark 1980.
@4 There have been several Libertarian Presidential TV campaigns. Seen coast to coast, even.
@3 It’s their choice. They have the right to insist that every donor “trust” them to spend the money however they want. However, this would include funding office expenses, salaries, and froufrous that some donors have no interest in paying for. And some donors don’t trust that they will spend their donations, that are intended for advertising, on advertising. But, if that’s how the campaign wants it – so be it.
However, in that case, many donors who don’t trust their choices or want a guarantee that their donations will be targeted a certain way – in this case, for the long, awaited Libertarian TV advertising campaign – will choose not to donate.
Since the campaign will only benefit by raising more money that will be set aside for advertising than they otherwise would have raised, and since that advertising will bring in more people in the form of inquiries, that can be turned into supporters, polling percentages, donors and votes, and since those new donors will send many donations that can be spent for any purpose, plus, perhaps some additional donations targeted for more advertising, the campaign should set up a guaranteed, segregated fund for advertising donations.
This would guarantee that this segregated amount, at least, will be spent on advertising. Of course, they could choose to spend even more if they are truly wise.
2. “You must set up a segregated, guaranteed fund that will put every dollar raised – 100% – into major network broadcast TV ads … not radio … not cable … major network broadcast TV …”
That is insane. That is like saying that the Federal Government should set aside 5% of GDP and spend it only on the military. Why not let the GJ campaign decide for themselves the highest and best use of their resources, whether grassroots organizing, or internet ads, or ads on broadcast or print media?
It’s about time.
… But, one more step is required to get significant donations …
You must set up a segregated, guaranteed fund that will put every dollar raised – 100% – into major network broadcast TV ads … not radio … not cable … major network broadcast TV …
Then you will receive many more donations from those who want to fund and target this special project.
You are not guaranteeing how much of the money raised will be spent on advertising … and in the end, if it’s not “enough,” it could be none at all.
We’ve been waiting through 30 years of broken promises. We can wait a bit longer for a guarantee.
“It is no secret that the mainstream media is fully invested in the tired Republican-Democrat party duopoly.”
This is absolutely true. We had sources at MSNBC in 2008 who told us that the word came down that there was to be no mention of Chuck Baldwin’s campaign. That was pretty much what happened.
It is going to get uglier, too. The corporate media no longer believes that it even has to make a pretense of fairness in the determination of what is news or in the reporting of it.