Thursday, July 08, 2010

Is Brogdon Using a Deceptive Ad?

Randy Brogdon unveiled his latest TV commercial today, but is it all it purports to be?

The ad (which you can view here) says:
"In Oklahoma, we know our name is linked to our reputation.

Mary Fallin says she loves our Oklahoma values; however, she regularly COMPROMISES those values. Fallin voted for the trillion dollar Wall Street bailout [COMPROMISE]. She's accepted thousands in contributions from bailout beneficiaries [COMPROMISE]. She's requested millions in pork from the Obama stimulus [COMPROMISE].

Do you want Mary Fallin dealing away your values in liberal COMPROMISES? Then don't COMPROMISE your values when you vote for Governor. Vote for Randy Brogdon." [ed. note: all caps indicates red "compromise" stamp on screen]
With each line, a relevant background flashes on the screen. However, one of the shots is less than accurate.


The ad claims that Mary Fallin has "accepted thousands in contributions from bailout beneficiaries", followed by the word "COMPROMISE" flashing across the screen. The information is attributed in the ad to

However, the screenshot from featured in the ad contains information about Fallin's earmark requests, not her campaign contributions. In fact, has no campaign finance records posted on their website.

While Fallin may well have received campaign donations from people connected to firms that received bailout money, it is deceptive of the Brogdon campaign to use the wrong source to validate their claim.

It's unfortunate that the Brogdon campaign used misleading information in this advertisement, because it not only wastes their money, but, as mentioned at the beginning of the spot, it affects Randy's name and reputation.

I doubt this was done intentionally, and hope that this was merely an oversight. However, the ends never justify the means. The impression given by the ad is false, and the ad should be pulled.

This is a hard pill for this Brogdon supporter to swallow, but fair is fair, and the truth is the truth. If this had come from any other campaign, I would have felt compelled to report it.


  1. Good informative story.

  2. This ad is in violation of state law requiring a "paid for" line. Ads need to have
    1)name of committee.
    2)person on committee, i.e. treasurer, president, etc.)
    3) address.
    Without a name and address it clearly violates the law and the television stations are in violation for running the ads too.

  3. So is the criticism that the background is not in sync with the voice over?

  4. Uh...I think you're grasping at straws here, Mr. Faught. I don't even understand your criticism really. The ad points out both her earmarks and her unscrupulous campaign contributions from stimulus beneficiaries. The exact moment that a supporting visual for one or the other comes on the screen is not really relevant. Both claims are true and verifiable, so why the nitpick?

    Honestly, I'm a bit skeptical about the author's supposed reluctance to bring this "deception" to light, considering his own outspoken resistance to Brogdon holding Mary Fallin accountable for her voting history and campaign finances. I'm thinking this article is the deception.

  5. The ad is accurate... should I just say "ditto" to the last Anonymous comment! Me thinks Mr. Faught is squealing too much about nothing!

  6. OK, the ad is true, but the right picture doesn't show up at the right time? That's pretty good when it comes to politicians. From what I've seen of Brodgon, he doesn't seem to do things deceptively on purpose. This seems a little petty. Fallin, however, did vote for the Bail Out after I wrote and begged her not to. She did receive money from beneficiaries to the bail out. Most concerning is her coauthoring of the Puerto Rico Statehood. Pueto Rico statehood is a progressive baby. So, how does the Pueto Rico Statehood help OK and why is a congresswoman from Oklahoma getting involved in Pueto Rico? Just shows they've got to her. I'm not voting for her, but she's gonna win. So, what's the fuss anyway. I just hope she defeats Jari Askins. Askins reminds me of a lady from my childhood that brings up really bad memories. I don't know if I could handle her for 4 years.

  7. Fallin is going to win?
    Uhhh, perhaps you have not been out driving around different parts of OK. EVERYWHERE I go I see signs for Brogdon, in rich and poor neighborhoods and in metro and rural areas. I have only seen ONE sign for Fallin. ONE. And I drive a LOT. People all over the US are opening their eyes to the establishment. Brogdon has a pretty good (not perfect) record for voting against the establishment in favor of what is Constitutional (ie 10th amendment movement, unconditional support for 2nd amendment and so on).


PLEASE INCLUDE YOUR NAME when commenting. Anonymous comments may be rejected if NOT accompanied by a name.

Comments are welcome, but remember - commenting on my blog is a privilege. Do not abuse that privilege, or your comment will be deleted.

Thank you for joining in the discussion at! Your opinion is appreciated!