Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Log Cabin Republicans Place Full Page Ad in “The Hill” Promoting Marriage Equality

Jim Burroway

January 9th, 2013

Click to enlarge.

The smaller print reads:

Log Cobin Republicans applauds those Republican Members of Congress who have signed on to the Respect for Marriage Act and urges other Republicans to follow their lead. To be the party of limited government, individual liberty, and fiscal responsibility, the Republican Party must stop standing in the way of caring adults building a family and a life together. A full 53 percent of Americans now support the freedom to marry. It’s time for Republicans to stop spending taxpayer money defending DOMA and start defending the right of All Americans to pursue happiness with the person they love.

The two GOP members of Congress who have signed on as co-sponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act are Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY).

This is the third full-page ad taken out by the Log Cabin Republicans in as many weeks, with the first two, in The New York Times and The Washington Post, attacking President Barack Obama’s nomination of Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) for defense secretary. The Hill is a special interest paper aimed at politicians, staff, and political pundits. For comparison purposes, here are the circulation figures for the three papers:

New York Times full-page ads run in the neighborhood of $100K. I would presume that the ad rates for the other papers are roughly proportionate to their circulation figures.

 

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

Ben in Oakland
January 9th, 2013 | LINK

You would think they would have placed the marriage ads in the larger papers, and the Hagel ads in the Hill.

You’d think.

Timothy Kincaid
January 9th, 2013 | LINK

What a great ad. Congratulations to Log Cabin.

(and I assume that rates are based on impact, not simply by circulation.)

MattNYC
January 9th, 2013 | LINK

Yes, the Republicans should be proud to fight for the right to deny health care to the citizenry…

MattNYC
January 9th, 2013 | LINK

So, I am guessing that THIS ad was paid for from their actual treasury–it seems affordable. The $100K ad drops obviously did not.

Timothy–you’d be wrong. Why do you think circulation (and page hits) statistics are so important?

Timothy Kincaid
January 9th, 2013 | LINK

Matt

I assume that a paper that is read by 25,000 elected officials and political insiders would have higher ad rates than a paper that is read by 25,000 people at large.

Jim Burroway
January 9th, 2013 | LINK

I would agree, which is why I said “roughly.” I’m sure The Hill commands advertising rates that are much higher than my old hometown paper, but I’m also sure that their rates are nowhere comparable to the Times or the Post.

Timothy Kincaid
January 9th, 2013 | LINK

Yes probably much lower.

It is interesting that the ads were written differently: NYT was asking public to call while Hill was a direct appeal. WaPo, I’m not sure exactly.

It will be worth watching to see if they continue advertising at this frequency.

Mike
January 9th, 2013 | LINK

Congress is not in session this week. Who saw The Hill ad? Nobody.

TampaZeke
January 9th, 2013 | LINK

Reeks of damage control and credibility repair desperation.

Why this ad now. How many of these ads have they placed since Boener started the DOMA defense?

MattNYC
January 9th, 2013 | LINK

A bit old, but fyi…

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/how-do-ad-rates-compare-for-roll-call-the-hill-capitol-leader_b4197

jpeckjr
January 9th, 2013 | LINK

Did LCR run ads in Washington State, Maine, Maryland, or Minnesota urging Republicans to vote in favor of marriage equality?

No. I didn’t think so.

But we are all certainly paying attention to LCR, aren’t we?

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.