With midterm elections just six days away, our televisions have been bombarded by political attack advertisements. These ads do not discuss a candidate’s positive attributes or platforms, but rather why his or her opponent shouldn’t be elected.

Political advertising has become a game of who has been involved in less controversy and scandal. Who has managed to keep him or herself off the radar enough to avoid being attacked. The issues have been completely forgotten. Candidates are no longer advocates of themselves in ads because it is more efficient to simply try to destroy the opponent. Political attack ads perpetuate mistrust in the government and delay the democratic process.

The increase in political attack ads is due in large part to the Supreme Court decision in January, which stated that corporations could not be limited in the amount of money they spend to either support or oppose a candidate. Although corporations cannot give an unlimited amount of money to the candidate directly, they can run as many negative ads as they want.

This decision has been met with intense criticism by the Obama administration. President Barack Obama said in a statement this summer that we are seeing ‘a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don’t know who’s behind these ads, and we don’t know who’s paying for them.’

With the push toward Election Day in the final stages, independent corporations have begun pouring millions of dollars into monitoring campaigns and running ads where necessary. Money is playing an ever-growing role in politics. Inevitably the question becomes this: Are politicians making decisions to better the government and improve people’s lives? Or are they simply satisfying those corporations that are giving them the most money?

American Action Network is one of the largest contributors to negative political ads. American Action Network President Rob Collins said in a New York Times article, ‘We carpet-bombed for two months in 82 races, now it’s sniper time.’ Comparing the campaign trail to the battle field demonstrates that defeating the opponent is more of a priority than achieving positive gains.

Such a statement has no place in politics. Collins knows the immense power he has, and the ads he chooses to run can greatly influence an election. Corporations like the American Action Network utilize shady, behind-the-scenes techniques to ensure that the candidates they endorse can get elected.

This is neither a Democratic nor a Republican issue. This is an American issue. The public should be shown ads explaining how a candidate will improve our dire situation, not how the other person will make it worse. It is not difficult to see why the American public is quickly losing trust in our government.

Many of the attack ads make stunning personal and political allegations. The public doesn’t know what to believe and what not to believe with so much negativity. Some of the claims in the ads are truly appalling and oftentimes are found to be fallacious or largely exaggerated.

A recent Fox News study found that 87 percent of Americans are concerned with the frequency of personal attacks in political ads. Attack ads are not popular, but they appear to be effective. Candidates and corporations continue to make these negative ads to sway elections.

This election season has made it clear that money truly does dominate in politics. Corporations with nearly unlimited resources have poured millions of dollars into attack ads and have greatly influenced races across the country. These attack ads only reinforce the idea that politicians should not be trusted and ensure that Americans will continue to lose confidence in the government.

Benjamin Klein is a junior political science and magazine journalism major. His column appears every Wednesday, and he can be reached at btklein@syr.edu.

 

Published on October 26, 2010 at 12:00 pm