Why did Phoenix send Donald Trump a cease-and-desist letter over ad?

The city attorney argued the campaign must immediately pull all ads depicting on-duty Phoenix police officers because they did not endorse him.

Campaign ad still
Phoenix police officers meet Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on the tarmac in "Movement," a campaign ad Mr. Trump has been ordered by the city attorney to pull.

The Phoenix city attorney sent a cease-and-desist letter to Donald Trump's campaign, insisting the Republican presidential candidate must pull a 30-second television ad because it shows him shaking hands with a group of the city's on-duty police officers.

The officers, who are featured in a clip about one second long, did not know they were being filmed and do not have permission to endorse any political candidate while on duty, Brad Holm wrote in the letter Thursday.

"In this context, the ad unmistakably and wrongfully suggests that Phoenix and the officers support or endorse Mr. Trump's campaign. That is not the case," Mr. Holm wrote, noting that the city and its police department do not endorse candidates for president or any other public office.

Trump has been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents some 330,000 officers nationwide, but the police in his video belong to a different union, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, which is part of the National Association of Police Organizations.

Neither the local nor the national union organization, which represents more than 241,000 officers, has endorsed a presidential candidate, Ken Crane, president of the Phoenix chapter, told The Arizona Republic.

City policies prohibit employees from making endorsements while on duty, wearing a uniform, or on city property, but they allow endorsements while employees are on their own time and out of uniform, the Republic reports.

While it may prove difficult to stop the Trump campaign's use of the video before Election Day, Mr. Crane said the city's letter was likely intended to discourage other campaigns, including Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, from following Trump's lead.

They’re trying to cover themselves, if you will,” Crane said. “Quite frankly, I think they would do the same thing if Clinton’s campaign was doing that, or at least they should."

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton urged the Trump campaign in a statement to comply immediately. Mr. Stanton, a Democrat who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, has been highly critical of Trump in the past, saying his campaign's rhetoric is "in complete contrast to our values as a city."

The letter argues, furthermore, that Trump needed the city's permission before showing its police badges and insignia patches in his ad – permission the city would not give to any candidate.

"Phoenix owns the exclusive right to use these distinctive designs under federal and state law, including the U.S. Copyright Act. Phoenix strictly regulates the use of its intellectual property," Holm's letter continued. "And Phoenix does not allow any person, entity, or political campaign to appropriate or otherwise use its protected materials or replicas for any private purpose such as a campaign ad."

The Trump campaign had not responded, as of Saturday, as ABC News reported.

The ad, which has aired in a dozen television markets, was described by The New York Times' Nick Corasaniti as Trump's "first commercial of the general election that is uplifting in tone," despite one quick clip of Clinton's "60 Minutes" interview alongside her husband in 1992.

"Until now, every ad from Mr. Trump has been negative in tone and harshly critical of Mrs. Clinton, while the candidate has claimed on the stump that his opponent was running a negative, hate-filled campaign," Mr. Corasaniti wrote. "It strikes a balance, with an energetic and uplifting feel that allows Mr. Trump to say he’s running on a positive message, while still offering his fervent supporters a negative image of Mrs. Clinton."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.