The Washington Post Rejects ‘Fire Elon Musk’ Ad Campaign, Raising Concerns Over Editorial Decisions
The Washington Post backed out of an agreement to run a “Fire Elon Musk” advertisement campaign that would have appeared as a wraparound on some of its Tuesday editions, according to the advocacy group Common Cause. The decision has raised questions about the newspaper’s approach to political advertising and its willingness to publish criticism of influential figures. Common Cause, in partnership with the Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund, had arranged a $115,000 ad buy with The Post. The plan was for the advertisement to cover the front and back pages of the Tuesday edition, along with a full-page ad inside. The design featured a large image of Musk laughing, a cutout of the White House, and bold text reading, “Who’s running this country: Donald Trump or Elon Musk?” Below, the ad criticized Musk’s influence, stating that he had created “chaos and confusion” while being accountable only to himself. The ad urged readers to call their senators and demand Trump “fire” Musk, directing them to the website FireMusk.org. Virginia Kase Solomón, president of Common Cause, said The Post’s advertising sales representative had been informed of the ad’s content and did not initially indicate that there would be any issues with running it.
The ad was meant to be distributed to key political locations, including the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon.“We submitted the artwork back on Tuesday of last week,” Kase Solomón said. “I’m assuming it went through a legal department or other kind of review. They said, ‘You can have something inside the paper but you can’t do the wrap.’ We said thanks, no thanks because we had a lot of questions.”Common Cause learned on Friday that The Post had decided not to run the wrap ad.“Is it because we’re critical of what’s happening with Elon Musk? Is it only okay to run things in The Post now that won’t anger the president or won’t have him calling Jeff Bezos asking why this was allowed?” she questioned, referring to The Post’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
The Washington Post did not provide an explanation for its decision to reject the ad. A spokesperson declined to comment, citing the publication’s policy of not discussing internal advertising decisions. According to The Post’s general advertising guidelines, advertisers are responsible for complying with legal and regulatory requirements for political advertising, including using required disclaimers. The newspaper states that while it accepts ads from various viewpoints, it reserves the right to verify factual claims and requires advertisers to obtain permission when using individuals’ names or likenesses. Kase Solomón expressed surprise over the rejection, especially after The Post had provided her organization with sample wrap ads to illustrate what their ad would look like. One of the samples was an ad sponsored by the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), which featured an image of Donald Trump with a thumbs-up gesture and a message highlighting his promise to end the electric vehicle mandate on his first day in office. “They gave us some sample art to show us what it would look like,” she said. “It was a thank-you Donald Trump piece of art.”She questioned whether The Post was avoiding content that might provoke Trump. “It just causes concern for us. Are they fearful of his reaction?” she asked. The decision comes amid broader scrutiny of The Post’s editorial choices. The newspaper recently declined to endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election and also refused to publish a cartoon depicting Bezos, Mickey Mouse, and other corporate figures offering bags of money to a towering Trump figure. For Common Cause, the rejected ad represented a significant financial commitment. “The planned $115,000 ad was a huge expenditure for us,” Kase Solomón said, adding that the organization had never before taken out a wrap ad with The Post. Although there was a signed agreement for the ad, Common Cause and the Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund had not yet made a payment, as the ad ultimately did not run.
“The account representative said this didn’t raise any alarms, but we would have to submit the artwork, obviously, ” Kase Solomón explained. “But [over] the campaign itself, they didn’t raise any concerns that it would be something too inflammatory for them. ”Common Cause has been actively campaigning against Musk’s influence in government, organizing thousands of calls to Congress and the White House to express concerns. The group has also gathered 60,000 signatures on a petition opposing Musk’s role in federal affairs. The “Fire Elon Musk” campaign, launched on February 3 by Common Cause, the Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund, and End Citizens United, is part of a broader effort to challenge Musk’s perceived influence over government policy and regulatory decisions. Despite The Post’s refusal to run the ad as a wraparound, the controversy has drawn further attention to the campaign and raised questions about The Post’s editorial stance when it comes to controversial political advertising.
