Like nearly everyone in the country, I’m sick of the negative advertising that permeates campaign season. Around here, they started running early, with the Moveon ads. In today’s Daily Press, op-ed writer John Miller offers some suggestions for making the ads go away:
- Require candidates appearance in the ads. “If they want to call their opponent names, the choice is theirs, but voters would see them doing it.”
- Ban 527s. “If a group, or a political party, wants to support a candidate, they should do it financially“
- Have TV stations band together to produce a program in which the candidates are allowed to state their case for election. “The local media have no higher responsibility than to help citizens participate in our democracy by presenting candidates’ views on the important issues of the day.”
- Limit the amount of money in campaigns. “If you limit the money, you also limit the number of commercials.”
Of all of his proposals, I like the first one the best. Negative advertising is here because it works. While I wish that every voter took the time to look for the truth, I know that is unrealistic. The only way to diminish their effect is to have the candidates actually in the ads, and not just in the tagline.
I don’t expect that we are going to see 527s banned any time soon. What I would like to see is the elimination of the provision which prohibits candidates and these 527s communicating. Forcing the candidates to appear in all ads, including those paid for by 527s, would go a long way towards reducing the trash that clogs up our airways and mailboxes.
As for limiting the amount of money in campaigns – I just don’t see that happening. Miller’s idea – that 75% of a candidate’s money should come from those who live or work in the district – is, in my opinion, too beneficial to incumbents. Except for public financing of campaigns, I don’t know how we limit the amount of money being spent. I do know that the increasing amounts needed to run for office are eliminating some very qualified people from the process.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
It’s not just that TV is expensive. In the age of cable, it’s also highly segmented, and targeting the audience you want (your base + independents, mostly) is much harder than it is with direct mail or phoning, where you can pick and choose the individuals who get the message. Unless you’re a statewide or national candidate, most of your TV ad viewers won’t be people you care about reaching. Come to think of it, I wonder if that isn’t why campaigns feel so uninhibited about throwing mud at that level.
Good point about TV – that was the major reason I didn’t use it in my campaign.
TV is tame compared to radio, though. The stuff I’ve heard on radio just boggles the mind. You wanna hear some mudslinging? Turn on the radio.
I’m sure I’m not typical, but I only listen to classical music on WHRO, so I never hear the radio mudslinging to which you refer. I get so much junk mail that it’s just an automatic response to glance and ditch. I can’t do that with the tv unless I don’t have it on in the first place. And that was my point – most people do have it on whenever they are home. You can’t reach the mute button as fast as you can pitch junk mail, at least I can’t.
But Lord knows, I wouldn’t want to pay for tv ads, not at all. I understand that. What I don’t understand is how it is that most of your TV ad viewers aren’t people you care about reaching – how would one know that? I would think, and I know NOTHING, that anyone who doesn’t know who you are and what you stand for would be the target audience. The “base” would be in place, would it not? So wouldn’t reaching beyond that be the goal?
Sorry, I’m not meaning to be argumentative at all. I truly don’t understand and am just asking for my own edification.
If I’m running for office in Norfolk, there is no way to only reach Norfolk voters on TV. The broadcast area is wider than that. So I end up reaching folks that can’t even vote for me. That’s why TV is difficult for anything other than statewide or national candidates.
The same is true for radio – but in that case, you are targeting a specific audience (ie, black radio listeners). I don’t listen to radio much, either, but what little I did hear this past election cycle was horrible.
You are correct that people throw away the mail. But part of the process of selecting who receives the mail is that you target specific folks – namely, people who vote. The more people vote, the more likely they are to read the mail. And let’s face it – you can’t mail to everybody (again, the cost).
Simple, Pat. If I’m running for House of Delegates (don’t worry — fat chance of that really happening) and I place an ad on Channel 10 News (to pick a prime slot out of a hat), my ad goes out on all the local cable systems, including some in North Carolina, plus over the air to a radius of 50 miles or so. If I’m lucky, maybe 5 percent of the audience lives in my district, and a number of those are dyed-in-the-wool Rs for whom my ad is just something to retaliate against. Channel 10, however, is going to charge me for every viewer. 95% of my investment is wasted up front. The return gets better as the district gets larger, but even for a citywide race like Vivian’s, TV tends to be a waste of money.
TV and radio ad buying is an art form. The viewers/listeners are intrinsically harder to identify. And the consultants who do it get paid well; they generally take 15% off the top. Bob Shrum has made a mint off all the presidential campaigns he’s bungled in the last quarter century.
I disagree with all of the editorial’s proposed solutions, but understand the sentiment that lies behind them. That said, Randy touches on one of the biggest problems in political advertising – advisors that take a cut of ad buys. Bob Shrum and his ilk have made a mint by convincing candidates that they need to blanket the airwaves with ad buys. And when you’re a candidate who feels like she’s >this
(huh. I guess wordpress doesn’t appreciate that. anyway, I continue:)
Or not. Okay. New rule, no greater than/less than symbols in comments. NOW I continue:
close to winning, it’s probably not hard to convince you that more is better. But for the rest of us? Who have seen the same @)@(*#!@ commercial 30 times in a week? It’s an obviously flawed approach. What a waste of money. And it enriches those who lower our public discourse.
~
Anyway, FWIW, if you’re going to do local television advertising, cable is as targeted as it gets. Very little paying for viewers you don’t need to reach.