It might be hard to believe, but sometimes political ads are chock full of distortions, manipulations and boldfaced lies.

But every once in a while a broadcaster shows some muscle and pulls a dishonest ad.

That’s what happened last fall when an anti-collective bargaining measure was on the ballot in Ohio. Marlene Quinn, whose great-granddaughter had nearly perished in a fire, appeared in an ad produced by pro-labor group We Are Ohio. “If not for the firefighters, we wouldn’t have our Zoey today,” Quinn said in the ad. “That’s why it is so important to vote no on Issue 2. Issue 2 makes it illegal to negotiate for enough firefighters to do their job.”

The anti-labor group Building a Better Ohio liked the first part of Quinn’s message. In fact, it liked it so much that the group, which supported Issue 2, featured the exact same footage of Quinn in its ad, up through the word “Zoey.” Then a narrator interceded and said “She’s right. By voting no on Issue 2, our safety will be threatened.”

Here are the two ads side by side:

Even in an era in which political ads are known for their slippery relationship to the truth, this ad stood out. Dale Bring, legal counsel for Building a Better Ohio, blamed Great-Grandma for making herself a vulnerable target: “Our ad is factual and verifiable, and the woman featured in the ad chose to make herself a public figure by participating in a paid advertisement. A campaign has every right within the law to use her statements for the purpose of political discourse."

After the ad aired, Quinn spoke out about feeling “violated.” Then the unthinkable happened: Thirty television stations pulled the ad.

Though broadcasters are legally bound to air ads produced by candidates’ campaigns, they have every right to reject ads from third-party groups like PACs and Super PACs. But they rarely do so. All too often broadcasters prioritize profit over principle and choose to keep misleading ads on the air.

And Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who directs the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, told Media Minutes last week that many station managers are simply unaware that they have the right to reject a third-party ad or request edits. “People have said, why are these deceptive ads on television, and the station managers have said, ‘Because we have to air them.’ But they don’t have to air third-party ads. Third-party ads don’t have that protection. And what that means is a station can either refuse to air them outright or insist on their accuracy.”

In the interest of informing the public and holding broadcasters’ feet to the fire, the Annenberg Center has launched FlackCheck.org. The site debunks dishonest political ads and has a tool that allows viewers to send complaints to stations airing such flimflammery.

This site is a great resource. But at the end of the day we need policy changes to restore truth to the political process.

My colleague Tim Karr, in his report Citizens Inundated, notes the need for broadcast stations to post their political files online, which would allow the public to identify who exactly is paying for political ads. Karr also recommends that the Federal Communications Commission require ads to list the names of the top four funders. These steps would give viewers a much better handle on what they are viewing — which would in turn allow them to make truly informed decisions at the polls. And isn’t that what voting is all about?

Click here if you’d like to report a deceptive ad to the FCC.

If you care about truth in political advertising, please consider a donation to the Free Press Action Fund. Thank you.