Aug. 25, 2008
Change the Channel on Sham Political Ads
By Damon Circosta
RALEIGH - Which of the following two statements do you think would be a more effective campaign advertisement?
- “Don’t vote for Sen. Smith.”
- “Sen. Smith wants to set violent criminals free. Call Sen. Smith and tell him to quit handing out get out of jail free cards.”
The second statement, urging you to contact the senator, might be extremely effective at decreasing the amount of votes for Smith. But under current federal and state law, such a statement may not be considered a campaign advertisement at all. It doesn’t matter if it airs right before an election and is accompanied by grainy and unflattering photos of the senator.
While most North Carolinians will be unable to distinguish one of these attack ads from similar ones produced by the campaigns themselves, the law treats them very differently.
As the old adage says, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. This is not the case in the world of election advertisement.
Sure, your average North Carolinian will assume that the purpose of any ad played right before Election Day and talking about a senator’s record on crime is created to affect his electoral chances. But look closer at that second ad and you will notice something missing.
The second statement doesn’t contain any words like “vote for” or “elect” that would automatically make such an ad “electioneering activity.” So long as a candidate is not paying for or coordinating such advertisements, they are not considered electioneering and therefore beyond the scope of regulation.
This election season you will see hundreds of such ads. They will come from both the political left and the right and the ads will mostly employ negative smear tactics. They will be produced by so-called “independent expenditure organizations,” thus named because they are prohibited from coordinating their activities with campaigns.
Nevertheless, wealthy campaign donors that bankroll candidates are the same people funding these groups. They set up these organizations specifically because there is no limit to how much these special interests can spend.
What this means is that wealthy donors can now circumvent existing campaign laws and spend unlimited amounts of money on ads that are in almost every way indistinguishable from campaign ads. With all of this big money being funneled into the system, the opportunity for corruption looms large.
Even in the unlikely event that these wealthy donors don’t want anything in return for producing these sham ads, the ability to purchase vast amounts of airtime is only available to the wealthiest among us, leaving the ordinary voter with much less influence on the process.
A cottage industry of organizations has developed to take advantage of this loophole and hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent. Here in North Carolina, gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory recently decried Bev Perdue’s “secret friends” for launching independent attack ads. But McCrory knows full well that an organization friendly to him is poised to do the exact same thing.
Changing the laws to prevent this sort of behavior is not possible before the November elections. In the short term, voters should be wary of all election-related advertising. While the inundation of ads might be both annoying and overwhelming, citizens must forge past the noise and seek out other ways to learn about those who wish to govern.
In the long term, we need to shape our campaign laws so that there can be a robust discussion about our democracy and no loopholes for special interests seeking to buy an election.
Damon Circosta is the director of policy for the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving elections in North Carolina.
3933 Arrow Dr.
Suite 101
Raleigh, N.C. 27612
877.258.6837 (toll free)