Resources / Ripples & Wipeouts

First there was Dracula.  Later came Blade and Lestat.  Now it’s Jean-Claude and Edward Cullen.  The biggest vampire of all, however, is not a character, but an industry:  TV campaign advertising.  It is sucking the lifeblood out of our political system, as well as anyone trying to relax with Regis over a second cup of coffee or decompress with CSI after a long day at the office.  As soon as we turn on the television – hoping for entertainment, information or escape – we are assaulted by campaign ads.

Political analyst Larry Sabato of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia estimates that in New Jersey alone over 20,000 political ads ran on local TV stations during this election season.  And that’s only through October 17.  Advertising volume was expected to peak in the final two weeks before Election Day.  The three candidates in New Jersey’s gubernatorial race have spent over $33 million on local television advertising, with some individual spots running up to 1,000 times.

In addition to being ubiquitous, these ads are negative in the extreme.  They are designed to create dissatisfaction and fear. Some contain falsehoods. Others highlight one candidate’s weight.  All feature jarring typography and ominous audio effects.  None adds to constructive dialogue or informed debate.  Apparently, the benefits of the campaign ad industry accrue to an elite few.  These include the hired guns who create these dark messages, the corporate broadcasters who own the stations and the lobbyists whose contributions pay for the ads – and for the influence that they buy.

The July 2009 Battleground Poll from George Washington University found that the majority of Americans (57%) disapprove of the job that Congress is doing.  Is it any wonder why, given that TV repeatedly tells us our candidates are cavalier, craven and corrupt?  And if indeed they are, the current campaign financing system must bear a large share of the blame.  Not only does it force candidates to spend most of their time courting donors, it limits who is able to run for office in the first place.  Any plausible candidate must be a demon fundraiser or independently wealthy, a status that brings with it a different host of concerns. How sad when the only way to ensure an independent public servant is to elect a billionaire.

Free enterprise and free speech are cornerstones of American democracy, not to be curtailed in the style of France, which restricts political ads on television, or Norway, which bans them altogether. Fortunately, there is a more palatable way to address the problem of vampire political ads – publicly funded election campaigns.  A sensible system funded with public dollars would put natural limits on the number of ads that run and also level the playing field for candidates who are not able to fund their own campaigns.  And it would give television watchers a break.  It might even encourage civility in advertising, since candidates would have adequate funding to promote their ideas, but not excess cash with which to vilify their opponents.

We’ve talked about it for years, but lacked the will to make it happen.  Now it’s time to take action, while the enthusiasm generated by last year’s presidential election lingers and our political process retains some shreds of credibility.  Public funding may not be a silver bullet, but it could make television safe for democracy.

--Bonnie McEwan

Vampire image is courtesy of