FARRAND: Like prescriptions, political ads should be required to have disclaimers

By Craig Farrand
Journal Register Company Columnist

Tick-tock.

Tick-tock.

You now have less than two weeks to get ready for Election Day, so let’s get to it.

First, understand that the real intentions of the various ballot proposals we face (surprise) have little in common with the ads you’ve seen on TV.

Or the fliers you’ve gotten in your mailboxes.

Or the robocalls you’ve gotten on your phones.

We all know that such “information” is a deliberate attempt to skew the truth, distort the facts and paint the opposition in the worst possible light.

Yet, these attempts to manipulate the debate wouldn’t be tried if they didn’t work.

In general terms, I wish all political ads were forced to include the same disclaimers as new medication.

“Should not be touched by pregnant women or those who are nursing; could cause severe reactions; if condition continues for more than four hours, call a neighbor; will not cure any disease; not to be taken with anything other than a stiff drink; has not be inspected by any reasonable person.”

With that disclaimer in mind, let’s review the real story behind some of these proposals.

Proposal 6: The Moroun Bridge Amendment.

Forget all the flagrant lies of the Ambassador Bridge owner; and they’ve been legion.

This is nothing more than an old man’s attempt to protect his monopoly — the people of Michigan and two nations be damned.

We know he’s been a lousy neighbor, but now he’s become that cranky old man down the street who scares little kids and throws rocks at everyone’s pets.

Bottom line: This is all about — only about — Manuel Moroun’s desperate attempt to maintain his lucrative status quo — at the expense of our state’s economic future.