TIPA - Truth In Political Advertising

ACCURACY = 6.0 out of 10.0. This advertisement makes vague and misleading claims that attempt to link Ken Salazar with increasing health care costs simply because he is an attorney.

FAIRNESS = 5.6 out of 10.0. This ad’s fairness is questionable at best, with Coors attacking Salazar for opposing caps on malpractice lawsuits, while health care costs are “skyrocketing”. The correlation between the two issues is debatable.

RELEVANCE = 6.3 out of 10.0. This advertisement was considered to be relevant inasmuch as it addresses health care costs. However, the ad’s focus on malpractice lawsuit abuse by attorneys seems like more of a personal attack on Salazar than a pertinent election issue.

OVERALL = 5.9 out of 10.0. This advertisement does not meet the minimal standards of practice to which the TIPA would like to see candidates adhere.

Rising health care costs is a central issue of the Senate race . “Trial Lawyers” presents a gloomy picture of doctors who are losing jobs and health care costs that are “hurting families”.

The scene portrays Salazar as an insensitive man who opposes caps on malpractice lawsuits in favor of politicians and trial lawyers. Coors states that “The lawsuit abuse in Colorado is out of control.” “While we lose, the trial lawyers cash in.” Some Advisory Panel members contested these claims, with one comment pointing out “Coors has talked a lot throughout this campaign about ‘lawyers and professional politicians.’ If he gets elected he’ll become one of those politicians.”

The advertisement keys in on Coors, who appears concerned about Colorado’s welfare. He concludes that while trial lawyers won’t change things, he will. In closing, Coors reminds viewers that he promotes “Straight talk and honest answers”.

Based on the ratings provided by Advisory Panel members and weighted so Democrats and Republicans were equal in number from a statistical averaging perspective, the TIPA has compiled a set of rating scores for the advertisement “Trial Lawyers”.

The TIPA uses a "1" to "10" rating scale for Accuracy (with greater accuracy reflected by a higher rating), Fairness (with a higher rating indicating a greater degree of fairness), and Relevancy (with a higher rating meaning the advertisement was most relevant to the U.S. Senate campaign). The Rating System is presented in detail on the TIPA Web site.

ACCURACY RATING. “Trial Lawyers” received an accuracy score of 6.0 out of 10.0. While providing estimates of facts, the ad misrepresents Salazar in a number of ways. Malpractice abuse is a real problem, and Salazar does accept money from trial lawyers. These claims, however, are exaggerated.

One panelist opined, “This ad actually explains the complexity of an issue in a thirty second spot. Taking money from the trial lawyers is true, but the guilt by association accusation is weak.” Another panelist countered that, “It is incorrect and misleading to imply that a cap on malpractice law suits will significantly reduce health care costs or individual health insurance costs.”

Referring to the claim that Salazar has received over “$500,000 from the trial lawyer lobby”, a fact check in The Denver Post states, “The Coors campaign concedes this is an estimate.” The fact check also pointed out that not all trial lawyers that Salazar received money from are suing health care providers.

Overall, Republicans and Independents rated the Accuracy of the advertisement at (7.3) and (8.0) respectively, significantly above the rating given by the Democrats (4.3).

FAIRNESS RATING. This ad received a barely average rating for fairness – 5.6 out of 10. The estimates given by Coors misrepresent Salazar’s actions. Further, malpractice suits may not even be associated with rising health care costs. As an irritated Republican panelist posited “Lawsuit abuse is a real issue. Salazar has indeed taken lots of trial-lawyer cash. Does electing Salazar equal ‘killing jobs’ etc? Does electing Coors equal protecting jobs? No logic here. This one insults viewers’ intelligence.”

Another panelist agreed by saying, “Caps are not the problem, it is the review process. Lawsuit abuse is NOT the cause of rising health care costs. Great impression, bad facts.”

Independents rated the ad quite fair (8.0), while Republicans mirrored the same partisan attitude held in the fairness rating (6.0), similarly, the Democrats demonstrated their partisan position with a well below average rating (4.7).

RELEVANCE RATING. This advertisement got a Relevance rating of 6.3 out of 10 for its focus on health care, although its correlation to malpractice lawsuits loses points on relevance. The rising cost of health care may in fact be caused by a multitude of other factors other than lawsuit abuse. One Democratic Panel member said, “Whether malpractice awards are truly responsible, or maybe most important, mainly responsible, for ‘skyrocketing health care costs’ is debatable, which reduces its relevance.” Another Democratic panelist stated, “ Hate the ad, but it is not really unfair.”

The Relevance rating was around average for all parties, with Republicans rating the advertisement at (7.0), Democrats (5.7) and Independents (6.0).

OVERALL RATING. “Trial Lawyers” falls below the acceptable standards that TIPA would like campaigns to adhere to in their advertising. Its overall score of 5.9 is a disappointing effort by the Coors campaign in providing viewers with “Straight talk and honest answers”.

(C) Copyright 2004 by the Democracy & Media Education Foundation. All rights reserved. Reproduction, duplication, transmission, or conveyance of this document – in whole or in part – without the express written consent of the DMEF is strictly prohibited. Bona fide print and electronic Press organizations, however, may quote this Report as long as proper attribution is given (i.e., “The Truth In Political Advertising Project”) and the quotation or reference accurately reflects the contents and conclusions of this Report. For questions, please call Zachary Adler at (303) 449-5043 or send an e-mail to Zachary@TIPAP.org. Thank you.