Campaign Advertisements: Historical Background
Darrell M. West, Brown University
Hard-hitting charges filled television screens in Election 2000. An independent
group from California called Shape the Debate was broadcasting an ad called
"Hypocrisy" modeled on the quiz show "Jeopardy." The first contestant chose the
category of political hypocrites for $200. The host read the question, "he says he
supports campaign finance reform, but held an illegal fund-raiser at a Buddhist
temple." Instantly, the contestant replied, "Who is Al Gore?" Additional questions
flashed across the stage. "He promised never to cut Medicare expenses, but cast
the deciding vote to cut Medicare by $55 billion" and "He crusades against
tobacco, but grew and sold it from his very own farm." In each case, the correct
answer according to the ad was "Who is Al Gore?" The spot closed by
proclaiming, "Al Gore has a lot to answer for. That's 'Hypocrisy.' Bye-bye."
Ads have come a long way since their roots as printed handbills in the 19th
century. Plastered on fences and trees, handbills attacked the opposition and
defended the honor of the ad sponsor. For example, in 1828, according to a
review by University of Pennsylvania Professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson,
handbills distributed by Andrew Jackson’s supporters portrayed John Quincy
Adams as “driving off with a horsewhip a crippled old soldier who dared to speak
to him, to ask an alms.’’ A circular distributed by Adams’s forces meanwhile
attacked Jackson for “ordering other executions, massacring Indians, stabbing a
Samuel Jackson in the back, murdering one soldier who disobeyed his
commands, and hanging three Indians.”
Early in the 20th century, radio became the medium of choice. Seizing upon the
ability to communicate instantly all across the nation, candidates used the power
of audio appeals to create greater intimacy with citizens. Warren Harding and
Franklin Roosevelt were two of the earliest pioneers in using radio to build their
popularity with voters.
In the 1950s, a revolution took place when the new medium of television was
married to the task of persuasive advertising. Ads at this time were not very
sophisticated by current standards. Political commercials relied upon footage
from press conferences or testimonials from prominent citizens. Many were socalled “talking head” commercials whereby the speaker spoke straight into the
camera without any interruption or colorful graphics.
The 1952 presidential campaign was the first one that featured television ads. In
that race, each party ran spots taking advantage of emotions stirred by World
War II. In an effort to elect General Dwight Eisenhower, GOP commercials
reminded voters that “one party rule made slaves out of the German people until
Hitler was conquered by Ike.’’ Not to be outdone, Democratic ads informed voters
that “General Hindenburg, the professional soldier and national hero, [was] also
ignorant of domestic and political affairs....The net result was his appointment of
Adolf Hitler as Chancellor.”
Over the past fifty years, different kinds of ads have gained prominence. The
1964 presidential campaign between Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater
featured graphic images of mushroom clouds and nuclear war to portray
Goldwater as an extremist not to be trusted with America’s future. The 1976 race
saw heart-felt pleas by Jimmy Carter that he would not lie to the American
people. When economic performance plummeted in the late 1970s, Republican
challenger Ronald Reagan used appeals that asked whether Americans were
"better off than they were four years ago." When the economy strengthened in
1984, Reagan’s peaceful spot “Morning in America” conveyed the point that
prosperity had returned to America.
The 1988 presidential contest was the zenith of attack politics in the post–World
War II period. Using the story of William Horton, a convicted black man who while
on furlough from a Massachusetts prison brutally raped a white woman, Bush
effectively portrayed Michael Dukakis as soft on crime and out of the political
mainstream. The 1992 campaign of Bill Clinton derided Bush for poor economic
performance and insensitivity to the plight of ordinary Americans. Reminding
voters that unemployment had risen, Clinton beat Bush by 43 percent to 38
percent.
In the 21st century, the Internet is transforming political communications and
allowing candidates to target ads even more carefully than before. By focusing
on websites that appeal to young people, or senior citizens, or voters interested
in health care, or minorities, candidates can broadcast banner ads to selected
groups of people. Though in their infancy, these Internet ads promise over the
long run to change the nature of the relationship between citizens and leaders.
Candidates have become adept at quick response ads whereby a spot broadcast
by one campaigner is matched within hours by a response from the opponent.
In addition to changes in the technology of advertising, we have seen major shifts
in who runs ads. For much of the past 50 years, ads were sponsored mainly by
candidates for elective office. Those who were on the ballot paid for nearly all of
the commercials seen by voters around election time. But now, due to changes in
campaign finance rules and court rulings, the list of those broadcasting ads has
extended to political parties, interest groups, and private citizens. It is estimated
that in 2000, 40 percent of the ads broadcast on television will be sponsored by
an organization other than a candidate.
In some respects, this broadening in the kinds of people participating in the
electoral dialogue is encouraging because it shows that more people care about
the election outcome. However, since studies have revealed that group ads tend
to be more negative and distorted than those messages broadcast by
candidates, the rise of non-candidate ads raises a host of problems for
democratic elections. Groups and individuals do not face the same type of
disclosure requirements as candidates; therefore, it is possible for certain
individuals or interest groups to secretly finance political communiqués without
knowledge by the American public.
Advances in ad editing techniques also have raised problems in terms of
deception and inaccuracy. In 1992, Pat Buchanan created problems for himself
in media circles when he broadcast ads that either speeded up or slowed down
the movements of President Bush in order to make him look either hyperactive or
lethargic. Independent groups have run ads that electronically superimposed the
image of one person next to that of someone else. These kinds of electronic
manipulations are hard to detect by ordinary viewers, which makes them
especially problematic from the standpoint of fair elections.
As ads become more technologically sophisticated, but remain easy to make by
a broad range of political interests, an even greater burden is placed on citizens
to sort out competing and sometimes deceptive claims from candidates. The old
days, when printed handbills merely challenged the honor of the opponent, have
given way to a wide range of constructive and unconstructive uses of television
and Internet technology.
Problems that warrant monitoring in the area of campaign advertising include
secretly financed ads, commercials that play to narrow groups in society, spots
that are inaccurate or misleading, candidates who rely on third parties or outside
organizations to deliver questionable appeals, and ads that offer little substance
but much emotion to the American voter struggling to decide how to vote. These
issues guarantee that ads will continue to remain a point both of interest and
contention in the foreseeable future. As long as ads continue to be the largest
expenditure in major campaigns, roughly 60 percent of the overall spending in
presidential races, they will continue to fascinate and aggravate political
observers.