1. Definition. Any politician who puts his or other minor child into a political advertising media form, where the child, trusting or obeying the parent, then acts or speaks a part on behalf of the politician-parent, furthering a verbal political ideological message reasonably beyond her volition or knowing intentionality or reason, shall be guilty of child exploitation.
2. Parameters of offense. Child exploitation shall be defined as in a current ordinary source accessible by ordinary persons, such as at a common online dictionary at http://legaldictionary.net/child-exploitation/ , a portion of which is summarized and expanded upon herein as benchmark:
Child exploitation: Child exploitation is using a minor child for personal or financial advantage, including profit, work, sexual pleasure but not limited to that last incident. The activities so forced upon the child, or into which the child is lured by a trusted parent, may indeed cause emotional, and social and other problems because of ramifications of such exxposure, but a definite connection is not required in advance for the establishment of the offense. Stage-crafting a child even in commercial settings may cause such harm, because of ramifications, and that is sufficient. The parent should have thought of the idea of negative reviews before putting the child on political Broadway.3. Harm, proof of harm. It is reasonable to suppose harm from the exposure itself for venal purposes, and the exposure to malignant individuals and others not interested in the child's best interests. The appearance of children acting parts in political commercial ads, with speaking parts and other staged ideological presentments intended by the parent to further the parent's fortunes, shall be prima facie negligent parenting.
For example, it is reasonable to anticipate conflict and publicity and adverse public discussion from staged commercial appearances, causing attention to be focused on such child's attractiveness and lure, exposing the child further to society's nether regions, and the mentally unbalanced. It is reasonable to hold the parents both responsible when a child appears commercially, for restoring the best interests of their children to their own parental focus point and so mitigating their future damage to their children.
Comments by the committee:
Both parents shall be equally liable for child exploitation, not just the politician. Dad can raise his own money, and shall not exploit his little kiddies to do so without such being fair game for political commentary. He should have thought of that. He is responsible for his children and if he puts them out there, he better act fast to get them out of the harm's way that he caused.