OPINION:
You cannot escape them unless you turn off the TV. One after another, with barely enough time for commercials hawking adult diapers and a cure for toe fungus, they come. They are repetitious and annoying.
One candidate promises to lower gas and grocery prices and criticizes the incumbent for failing to do so (as if politicians can control the market). Another candidate sits on a toilet, and the ad calls for his socialist opponent to be “flushed.”
Still another speaks of improving education. We are already spending record amounts on education, so what is the point?
People were interested in these podcasts
None of the ads that I have seen speaks of school choice, which is growing across the country. Not one ad promises to lower the $40 trillion debt or reform Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to run out of money in late 2032 and 2033, respectively.
Few of these ads are positive or uplifting. No “Morning in America” ads, such as those President Reagan ran in 1984. No, this is mourning for America. It is depressing. These people cannot possibly live up to their promises. If the incumbents who are running similar ads could fulfill their promises, would they not have done so by now?
All they seem capable of is running up the debt and, if Democrats win majorities in Congress, investigating President Trump and his family’s alleged corruption (which some Republican stalwarts believe is just revenge for what Republicans tried to do to Hunter Biden).
This is not governing. It does not improve any lives.
Surveys show that a majority of voters dislike negative ads, yet they must be effective — or millions of dollars would not be spent on them.
The history of negative campaigning precedes the TV era. EBSCO, a major company that provides research databases, e-journals, e-books and discovery tools to libraries, schools, universities and hospitals, has cataloged some of that history.
It recalls: “During the first presidential election in 1796, Thomas Jefferson was labeled an atheist and a Francophile (the public had grown wary of France, which at the time was mired in the French Revolution; Jefferson had previously been the U.S. ambassador to that country). Some of Jefferson’s political opponents published statements claiming that if elected, he would ban the Bible and allow the nation to fall into a state of moral decay. On the other side of the campaign, John Adams was labeled by Jefferson’s proponents as a monarchist with aspirations to become king of the new United States. Adams won the election, and Jefferson came in second; in accordance with the Electoral College procedure at the time, Jefferson thus became Adams’ vice president, forcing the two rivals to work together after the election.”
Imagine that: working together after an election.
Numerous efforts have been made to control campaign spending and the content of political ads, but like water running downhill, politicians manage to get around restrictions. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act, was an effort to control campaign spending and ad content.
The bipartisan bill — authored by Sens. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and Russell Feingold, Wisconsin Democrat — was supposed to limit the amount of “soft money” in campaigns by prohibiting national political parties from raising or spending money not subject to federal limits. That included state and local races and even discussion of issues close to an election.
The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down the law’s limits on independent political expenditures by corporations, but not the law’s ban on foreign corporations or foreign nationals. That prohibition has been circumvented, critics say, by third-party entities that “launder” outside money before it is sent to parties, candidates or their political action committees.
The court ruled that independent political expenditures by U.S. corporations are a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.
The disingenuous campaign ads, the obscene amount of money spent to air them and the promises that are rarely fulfilled are enough to make one cynical and unwilling to vote. I will still vote (perhaps out of habit), but count me among the cynics.
• Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book, “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (Humanix Books).
Follow the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.