September 25, 1998
Contact: Ann Marie Deer Owens, (615) 322-2706, [email protected]
Attack ads have their uses, Vanderbilt political scientist's research shows
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Although many Americans blame negative campaign advertising for voter disinterest, political scientist John Geer believes negative ads are getting a bum rap in the debate about campaign reform.
"Some people have actually recommended that we find ways to ban negative ads, that we want to stop candidates from attacking the opposition," Geer said. "That is serious because we are talking about the First Amendment right of freedom of speech."
Geer has published research in the general area of elections and is engaged in a project assessing political advertising in presidential elections. He is the author of "From Tea Leaves to Opinion Polls" and "Politicians and Party Politics," published this year by The Johns Hopkins Press. His current and past research has contributed to his serving as vice chair of the Task Force on Campaign Reform. It is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. The panel recently issued a report, "Campaign Reform: Insights and Evidence," which found political attack ads could be legitimate.
"Americans like a good fight, and attacks stimulate voter interest," Geer said. "In addition, our research showed that attack ads contain more information than the positive ads, and people remember the negative ones better." Geer said that the negative ads might also remind people of why they have traditionally supported one party over the other.
He emphasized that distortions, exaggerations or outright lies are never legitimate campaign tactics. Those interested in campaign reform should work to stop misleading ads, regardless of the tone of the message. Geer noted that research shows about half of political advertisements contain at least one misleading statement.
The report applauds the use of so-called ad watches, which are systematic efforts by journalists to monitor and report on the truthfulness of campaign ads. It recommends that the reporters move away from some of the more traditional day-to-day coverage of campaigns to devote time and expertise to researching the accuracy of ads.
A hot issue before Congress now is possible reform of the campaign finance system. The task force recommended a system of partial public funding of congressional campaigns similar to the one now used for presidential primary candidates.
"We did not find that too much money is being on campaigns," Geer said. "In fact, the problem is that too little is being spent." He said that at least in the congressional primary races, candidates should be offered public matching funds in proportion to their success in raising private money in small individual contributions. Major-party nominees would be offered significant lump sums for the general election campaign. "The challengers are in such a hole to begin with, that the incumbents are able to crush them right away," he said.
The report also made recommendations about soft money, which Geer said has the benefit of building the parties but has become a huge loophole in the fund-raising process. "I personally would like to see any set of rules that is put forward have a five-year limitation," Geer said. "The rules should fade after five years because candidates and politicians always find the loopholes to circumvent the law."
The report endorsed efforts to engage more citizens in the electoral process through non-partisan civic groups such as Project Vote Smart. It gathers information on more than 20,000 candidates and elected officials. The information is available via the Internet and by telephone through a toll-free line. Kids Voting USA is another organization that receives kudos from the task force for increasing political participation by families.
Geer said a real problem is that the public thinks the political system is broken, and ways need to be found to communicate the good side of politics. He thinks political scientists need to increase efforts to communicate their research findings to the public.
Geer said the government does respond to citizen pressure for a change in policy. However, we must remember that the nation's founders set up a system designed to create hurdles for political change. Eventually, Geer said, it does work.
###
RSS