206 CHAPTER 7|ELECTIONS
to raise doubts about their opponents by citing politically damaging statements
or unpopular past behavior. In conducting opposition research, candidates and
interest groups dig into an opponent’s past for embarrassing incidents or personal
indiscretions, either by the candidate or a by member of the candidate’s family or
staff. Campaigns may then leak this information to the media or release it on their
own. Candidates, parties, and interest groups also routinely use trackers, staff
who attend their opponents’ events with video cameras in the hopes of recording
embarrassing behavior or statements. The resulting videos may be posted on the
Internet, given to the press, or used in a campaign ad.
Another way that candidates may confront one another involves the use of
attack ads, which are campaign ads that criticize the opponent. Many such
ads stretch the truth (or break it outright), trying to get voters to stop and
think—or to get the opposing candidate to spend time and money denying the
ads’ claims. In the 2010 campaign various candidates were accused of “wanting
to gas house pets, inject young girls with dangerous drugs, let men beat their
wives, and assist child molesters, whether by buying them Viagra or protect-
ing their privacy.”^24 Candidates who are behind in the polls sometimes resort to
this type of ad.Campaign Advertising: Getting the Word Out
One of the realities of modern American electoral campaigns is that they are con-
ducted largely through campaign advertising. Candidates, party committees, and
interest groups spend more than several billion dollars during each election cycle
for federal offi ce. Most of that money goes to campaign advertising, usually as
30-second television spots. Such advertising is critical because candidates can-
not assume that citizens will take the time to learn from other sources about the
candidates, their qualifi cations, and their issue positions.
Campaign advertising has evolved considerably over the last generation.^25 Dur-
ing the early years of television, many campaign ads consisted of speeches by can-
didates or endorsements from supporters, and they ran several minutes in length.
Today, in contrast, campaign ads are short, feature arresting images, and often
use photo montages and bold text to engage a distracted citizenry. Content varies
depending on who is running the ads. Yet despite all the money and eff ort poured
into campaign advertising, these messages must deliver a message that all viewers
can understand without too much interpretation.
One critical question about campaign advertising is whether
the ads work: whether they shape what people know or infl uence
their vote decisions or other forms of participation. Some observ-
ers have complained that campaign ads— especially attack ads
and negative campaigning—depress voter turnout and reinforce
citizens’ negative perceptions of government.^26 During the 2010
campaign one candidate’s ad showed the opponent as an evil
blimp hovering over Washington; another used video of a kin-
dergarten class while talking about the need to reduce confl ict
in Congress.^27 These ads seek to capture voters’ attention, to get
them to focus on a race long enough to consider the candidates
and their real messages. With regard to negative campaigning,
early evidence suggested that attack ads depress voter turnout,
but later studies have shown that they do not have much eff ect.^28attack ads Campaign advertis-
ing that criticizes a candidate’s
opponent—typically by making
potentially damaging claims about
the opponent’s background or
record—rather than focusing on
positive reasons to vote for the
candidate.
IN THE 2012 PRESIDENTIAL RACE,
many of the ads aired by
the Romney campaign and
Republican groups criticized
President Obama, blaming him
for the nation’s ongoing economic
problems.