Opinion : It's time to make 'truth in advertising' laws apply to politicians, too

If the Federal Trade Commission really wanted to protect Americans from the harmful effects of false advertisements, it would start with Congress and the White House.

Instead, it prefers to punish the makers of my allergy medicine.

Every August, misery comes to me in the form of hay fever. I grew up hating the outdoors, and especially rural outdoors in the summer, because I was always miserable. That misery continued until the mid 1990s, when I discovered a way to manage my August allergies. The big-name, big dollar stuff advertised on TV didn't help, but I found some very affordable over-the-counter products that, when used together, reduced my debilitating misery into mere discomfort.

Fellow allergy sufferers may want to know my formula: Daily doses of chlorpheniramine maleate, homeopathic allergy medicines that use plant extracts to make my immune system feel less threatened by pollen, and eye drops designed specifically for allergy-related redness.

The homeopathic stuff is hard to find; in fact, I could not find any in stores in the area the past couple of years. I did however, find a product that worked. It's called Allergy MD.

But this summer, Allergy MD is not available.

Why? Because last year, the FTC sued its maker, Iovate, for violating its 'truth in advertising" rules.

How? The FTC says that Iovate falsely claims that Allergy MD is "homeopathic."

So, the company had to pay the FTC $5 million.

Some of that money, says the FTC, will be sent to the people who bought Allergy, MD. The rest of the money the government labels as "disgorgement," which is a fancy word that means the government takes money from companies it does not like and gives it to its own favorite companies. Only a portion of that $5.5 million will actually go to the people who bought Allergy MD and other products covered by the legal action. The private companies hired by the government to disburse the refunds will actually get more money than the affected citizens. That's how government functions. (I spent hours on the phone and the FTC web site trying to find how I, as a customer, could obtain a refund, to no avail.)

The only impact on me from this FTC action, which was purportedly made on my behalf, was to make it more difficult to find medicine that makes me feel better. Yet, the FTC cited the action against Allergy, MD, as one of its successes in its report to Congress defending its budget.

I have never seen an advertisement for Allergy, MD. I first bought it at a pharmacy, where it was the only natural treatment for hay fever available. (There are other brands, including Hyland, but they are similarly difficult to find.) I read the box carefully this week. Not once does the box mention the H-word. I bought it last year via the Internet.

Maybe it's the grumpiness that causes me to growl about this FTC issue. Or maybe it's common sense.

Congress and the White House have done more damage to the American consumer with their annual budgeting policies -- and with the claims they make about their budgets via the same airways that my allergy medicine provider is accused of misusing -- than Allergy MD.

Yet, the FTC never hauls the politicians into court.

It should.

President Obama should be fined at least $5.5 million for claiming that his budget proposal was anything like what Ronald Reagan would do. Sure, Reagan did agree with Congress to raise taxes -- but only after he had already compelled the Democrats in Congress to lower taxes. And later on in his administration, Reagan made it clear: Debt ceiling increases should be accompanied only by spending cuts, not tax increases. Obama, on the other hand, worked with his own party to raise taxes on tens of millions of people through his health care bill, and then demanded that Congress "compromise" by raising taxes even more. Obama knew all of this when he told modern Republicans to be like Reagan, but he said it anyway. I guess government has higher expectations for allergy medicine makers than it does for presidents.

Of course, the Republicans in Congress are equally guilty of violating truth in advertising laws, claiming that a Balanced Budget Amendment is necessary. But the same party that claims that the only way to get a Democratic President and the Democrats in charge of the Senate to pass a balanced budget is through a constitutional amendment, hoping that Americans will forget that during the decade that the GOP was in Congress, it never actually passed a balanced budget.

What America needs, as we approach what seems to be the end of this debt ceiling "crisis," is a way to punish politicians for the untruths they told during the debate.

Because blatant misreprestations from politicians are much more costly to Americans than any claim made by the makers of my allergy medicine.