WeCan.Vote Another Astroturf Attempt by Anti-Gun Advertising Pros to Manipulate Public Opinion
“This site lets kids who can’t vote have a voice on gun control,” a Monday PR piece masked as news by Fast Company advertises. “WeCan.Vote polls kids still under 18 about how they plan to cast their ballots on gun issues.”
“High school students who want to know learn [sic] more about their own congressional representatives’ views on gun control can search by state to view a roster of that place’s congressional representatives alongside an ‘NRA rating’ that grades each official on an A through F scale for their ties to the gun industry,” the hack piece lies. The grades are based on voting records and questionnaires, and while I’ve had plenty of occasions to question ratings and rationales, there is no credible evidence presented to back up the claim that gun industry ties are a factor – let alone the factor – in grade assignments.
So who is “WeCan.vote”?
“The initiative was created by three adults—Danielle Clemons, Frank Garcia, and Giulia Magaldi, all of whom work hold [sic] creative posts at top agencies in the advertising world,” the “report” continues. Checking their LinkedIn profiles, they all work for New York-based ad agency Droga5
Advertising professionals trying to manipulate public opinion on guns…? We’ve seen that before plenty of times. Recall that Million Mom March founder Donna Dees-Thomases represented herself as just a mom who got involved, despite being a CBS publicist and the sister-in-law of a close friend and advisor to Hillary Clinton. Similarly “stay-at-home mom” Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action “had a 15-year career as a communications executive for both public relations agencies and Fortune 500 corporations.” Likewise, former Brady Campaign President Dan Gross “was the youngest-ever partner at the JWT advertising agency.”
And we’ve seen the “pros” at work, from McCann New York featuring children having a sex toy battle, to Saatchi & Saatchi rewriting history with the Founding Fathers adding an “as long as people aren’t being dumb-asses” qualifier to the Second Amendment, to Grey doing “hidden camera interviews” for a “public service announcement, and leaving unmentioned that the supposed subjects having their minds changed on guns were identified on filming permit as “actors.”
The WeCan.Vote website appears just as credible. And it promises to be just as ineffective at bringing about any real effect, if 251 “students” voting to date on an “effort began in late May” is any indication.
So far, the anti-gunners are sweeping the controlled virtual political landscape, and don’t look for that to change. NRA “A’s” will continue to be voted out, and NRA “F’s voted in by overwhelming margins.
They even tell us how they’ll do it.
“We have no reliable method of determining whether or not a vote has been manipulated,” WeCan.Vote admits in the fine print.” If, however, we see clear indications of manipulation we may remove the vote from our site or delete individual votes, in our sole discretion.”
That means if gun owners start to make the needle move in the other direction, there is also no reliable method for determining whether or not their votes are being rejected at the sole discretion of the gun-grabbers running the website.
But hey, since when have advertisers ever deceptively manipulated public opinion? And when have Astroturf gun-grabbers ever pretended to be “grassroots”?
[ot-video type=”youtube” url=”https://youtu.be/_EgSdnUCLuw”]
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”