I love watching television. I also love politics. It only makes sense then that I love watching politics on television?and specifically political commercials. Indeed, as we get closer and closer to Election Day, it's hard to avoid these 30-second nuggets during local news, game shows, and the late night comics. Viewers in Maine have seen an assortment of ads for Senate candidates Susan Collins and Tom Allen; for presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama; and even for Jeanne Shaheen and John Sununu (candidates for Senate in New Hampshire). The ads have been sponsored by the candidates and their parties, and even by a collection of outside interest groups.
For many, the TV ad is a symptom of deep problems in the current culture of American campaigns. Former Senator Thomas Daschle called negative ads "the crack cocaine of politics." Columnist David Broder once said they were "killing our democracy." I disagree. I think political commercials are great and serve a valuable function. Let me explain how.
The most common argument against political commercials is that they turn voters off to the political process, and that they confuse voters about the important issues. The evidence clearly belies this, however. Last year, I co-authored a book with three colleagues on precisely these questions, where we worked hard to leverage the best available evidence ("Campaign Advertising and American Democracy," published by Temple University Press). Using a series of public opinion surveys from 2000 and 2004, and a database of ads aired in both elections (visit wiscadproject.wisc.edu), we found that citizens who watched more political commercials were more knowledgeable about the candidates, more interested in the election, more trusting of government, and in some circumstances, more likely to vote. Further still, exposure to negative ads had the largest effect on citizens in terms of knowledge about candidates and the issues.
A second argument against political ads is that they trick citizens into voting for candidates that they might not normally support. Is this claim true? Again, the answer is no. In my new research, I am investigating the relationship between ad exposure and vote choice. Convincingly, the evidence shows that ads speak most strongly to partisans, most often reinforcing one's political positions. In plain terms, Democrats tend to listen to Democratic ads, and Republicans tend to listen to Republican ads. Independents largely ignore campaign ads from both sides. This may offer little counsel to the hope that ads bridge partisan differences, but the evidence is clear that it does little to trick voters.
There is even better news, though. I find that political ads tend to influence political novices most strongly. That is, voters who know little about politics are far more responsive to political ads than voters who consider themselves political experts. In this sense, not only are political ads reinforcing a partisan's viewpoint, they are breaking through to voters with little prior knowledge about politics.
This last point is crucial. Increasingly, campaigns are shifting energies to intense micro-targeting efforts. This is where parties mine consumer purchasing data to identify various types of voters (wine-drinking Democrats; hockey mom Republicans). Campaigns then send highly targeted messages (usually though phone calls and canvassing) to different categories of voters. While successful, these efforts result in highly fractured campaign messages than can differ across neighborhoods, age groups, and income brackets. It also tends to ignore those citizens who don't traditionally vote (and who, by the way, typically know less about politics). In contrast, political ads on television are serving a valuable function by speaking still to a wide swath of the electorate, and with a message that all viewers see at the same time.
I'm no Pollyanna, however, when it comes to political advertising. Lots of political ads, for example, seem to stretch the truth. I agree that this is problematic. Of course, misrepresentations are common in all forms of political discourse?campaign rallies, web pages, mailed literature, and candidate debates. The campaign ad is merely one vehicle through which candidates can and do convey their political ideas.
My colleagues and I often refer to political ads as the multivitamins of American politics. That is, they can often help provide nutrients in the absence of other political information. Of course, like all vitamins, political advertisements are most effective when they are supplementing, rather than supplanting, more substantial sources of nutrition. Just as people require a balanced diet and cannot survive on vitamins alone, citizens cannot and should not rely on campaign advertising as their only source of political information. Ideally, campaign ads simply would serve as accompaniments to a more substantial informational diet.
Ultimately, I think American politics has far deeper problems than the campaign ad. Observers have bemoaned, for example, the inability of our representatives to have serious debate about long-term problems like Social Security, energy consumption, or global warming. Could our leaders show more political courage? Absolutely. Would it be better if we could have reasoned debates about the long-term health of the Social Security system and a rational, forward-thinking energy program? For certain. Is political advertising to blame for (that is, a cause of) skittish legislators and the lack of serious discussion of pressing public policy issues? Unlikely.
Michael Franz is an assistant professor in the government department.