Fischer's ad attacking Lunsford doesn't appear to meet the FEC requirement that the candidate running the ad appear in it, almost full screen, so viewers have a clear idea of who paid for the ad. An attorney for Lunsford's campaign writes "the failure of the Fischer campaign is not a failure of form but a blatant attempt by Mr. Fischer to escape personal responsibility for a scurrilous advertisement that seeks unfairly to impugn the character of Mr. Lunsford." Fischer's campaign has made changes to the TV attack ad since it first aired.

But Lunsford's campaign lawyer says TV stations that ran the Fischer ad and gave him what's called the "Lowest Unit Charge" should now demand that he pay them more money. I'm sure that sounds great to WHAS-TV's general manager and the head honchos at other TV stations across Kentucky. But attorney Neil P. Reiff adds this line "the failure to do so by your station may result in a violation of section 441b of the FECA by the provision of an advertising rate to which the federal candidate is not legally entitled." In other words, the Lunsford camp is threatening to file a complaint against TV stations if they don't try to dig more money out of Fischer's campaign pocket.

Note to both candidates: Greg, read the FEC rules. Your staff obviously hasn't and you're responsible for what's in your ads and reports. Bruce, make sure and report how much you're paying those lawyers on your next campaign finance report. And thanks for trying to help the TV stations earn a few extra bucks from your opponent but the threat probably wasn't a good idea.