TV Political Ads: Ditching Democracy 30 Seconds at a Time

There’s good news this week. There’s only about two weeks before the midterm elections.

Now for the bad news. There’s still about two more weeks to be garroted by TV ads.

Back-to-back-to-back, we are choking on lies, distortions, and half-truths. This year may go into history as having the most vicious attack ads since the “dark ages” shortly after the nation was founded. Biggest difference? More than two centuries later, most of the ads scream at you from television rather than partisan newspapers.

Between $3.5 and $4.5 billion will be spent on campaign ads this season. That’s one to two billion more than was spent during the mid-term elections four years ago.

One of the reasons for the increase in spending is that the conservative wing of the Republican party has launched an all-out assault to once again take over Congress. Another reason is that they got a supreme assist in January. The Supreme Court, by a 5–4 vote along party lines, decided in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission [130 S.Ct. 876] that the First Amendment applies to corporations, which now would enjoy the same protections given to citizens and associations of citizens. The decision essentially obliterated the gains made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as the McCain–Feingold Act) that reformed campaign spending— and a Supreme Court decision (McConnell v. FEC; 540 U.S. 93) a year later that ruled most of the Act constitutional.

In a strongly-worded dissent in the Citizens United case, Justice John Paul Stevens declared the Supreme Court’s decision “threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation…. [It is] a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.”

Justice Stevens further argued that, “While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”

President Obama called the decision, “a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

Eight of the 10 groups that have bought the most TV advertising this election lean to the Republicans, according to an analysis of by the Wesleyan Media Project.

And that brings us to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, second in spending only to the Republican Governors Association. The Chamber of Commerce, along with the National Rifle Association, was one of the most vigorous supporters of the Citizens United legal case to extend First Amendment protections to corporations.

At one time, the Chamber was a  non-partisan association that advanced the interests of all business. During the past decade, it has become an advocacy group for conservative candidates and ideology. For this election, it has promised to spend about $75 million in campaign ads. Because the Chamber, a non-profit agency, doesn’t need to report who it receives contribution from, or even report its spending to the Federal Elections Commission, the nation is left wondering if it’s true, as the President charges, that significant donations are from foreign companies and governments. Those contributions are illegal under U.S. law. The Chamber claims it does receive foreign money but doesn’t use it for political advertising — but refuses to disclose specifics.

Even if the Chamber doesn’t use foreign money for political ads, the revenue it receives from foreign money frees up its budget to increase spending for a right-wing agenda. Four years ago, almost every organization disclosed where their funds came from. This year, according to FEC data, only about one-third of the organizations have done so.

Republicans have put a “face” on their attack ads, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who appears in more anti-Democrat campaign ads than any Democrat running for office, is seen as everything evil. Perhaps it’s because she is a powerful woman who represents San Francisco, a district that is racially, culturally, and ethnically diverse. Pelosi, and most Democrats in hotly contested races, are portrayed as Pelosi puppets who voted for the stimulus bill and health care reform, both seen erroneously by the ultra-conservative wing as socialist or Marxist programs.

Most objective analysts say that the stimulus bill, even with its flaws, kept the nation out of sinking into a Depression, and that health reform, derisively known as Obamacare, has significantly improved the nation’s health care while keeping costs down. However, President Obama doesn’t appear in too many attack ads. For the Party on the White to emphasize the “evils” of President Obama could result in a backlash.

In response, the Democrats have charged Republicans as being the “Party of NO,” with no social conscience and no political agenda, a party that blocks any reform or progress solely for political reasons. What the Democrats didn’t do is more important than what they did do. The Democrats have been unable to effectively use campaign advertising to portray the Republicans as the party in power when the nation entered into an unjustified $1 trillion war in Iraq, created the greatest deficit in American history, refused to stop Wall Street and bank greed, allowed the mortgage crisis to develop and undermine American security, brought about double-digit unemployment, and shoved the nation into one of its greatest recessions.

But here’s another reality.  TV ads, like newspaper editorials, seldom change anyone’s preconceived opinions. Liberals continue to support liberals. Conservatives continue to support conservatives. The “independent” middle, sometimes known as a “soft vote” because both parties try to grab it, is largely a myth. The “soft middle” may not be influenced by any campaign ad—and they may not even vote.

So what is the purpose of TV ads and the significant increase in funding? Simply, it’s to hold and reinforce the base. Conservatives have done much better to rally their base than have liberals this year. If the conservative retake either or both houses of Congress, it will not be because the Obama administration failed, but because the conservatives spent significantly more on television ads, rallied its base, controlled the agenda, and effectively blocked an ineffective Democratic response that failed to counter lies, distortions, and half-truths.

Walter Brasch, during a 40-year work career in mass communications, has been a member of several unions, in both the private and public sectors. He is a syndicated newspaper columnist and the author of 16 books, including With Just Cause: Unionization of the American Journalist, Before the First Snow: Stories from the Revolution, and his latest Fracking Pennsylvania. He can be contacted at: Read other articles by Walter, or visit Walter's website.

3 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. bozh said on October 18th, 2010 at 5:59pm #

    An election in US??? Respectfully, respectfully , dear walter, i strenuously object or at least ask the judges about socalled elections, but never those of US.
    Electioneering comes after selectioneering; usually over yrs or decades. And u have to be party member; in spirit at least.
    To run for office u cannot be a fisher, miner, tiller, cook, pave; these are highly uneducated; lack oratory, etc.
    So u have to be educated, but only by uncle sam and poor serfs are not selected for that.

    And there is only one party in action in US. Or to put it this way: all people in US running for congress stand about an inch apart on hitler-mossolini’s policies.

    And if mussolini wld have run for office, he’d be proclaimed a liberal just like biden and obama.
    And most of all, people thinking that throwing in a littel piece of paper in a box is gonna affect congress!
    And the little paper only approves a person, but not, let’s say, of not going to war or bringing in heath care; having free education, and obtaining accurate information.

    I wish walter visit switzerland and see “die kleine papieren switzer werfen”; und was diese sagen! danke, meine freunden!

  2. mary said on October 19th, 2010 at 1:23am #

    The EDL (English Defence League!) is a more racist offshoot of the British National Party, shaven headed usually and wrapping themselves in the flag of St George.

    They have been seen with the JNF at places where the BDS have been present, eg Ahava, Covent Garden, London, and are now aligning themselves with the Tea Party types. Enough said.,news-comment,news-politics,anti-islam-extremists-edl-spread-their-tentacles-with-jewish-arm-and-tea-party-links

  3. mary said on October 19th, 2010 at 1:31am #

    The Community Security Trust, mentioned in the link above, is part of the Holocaust industry. It is a charity yet is exempt from publishing its details and accounts on the Charity Commission website. It also receives training from the Metropolitan Police and other police forces. In other words, a private policing operation outside the normal law and accountability.
    Lots of orange colour (danger?) and mentions of the word ‘security’ just to add to the hype.