Eight reasons to hit 'mute' during TV ads by super PACs

Presidents have a hard time saying no to those who spent millions to help them win. Big donors get easier access to the White House to pitch their interests than little donors. Money buys influence.

4. The most advanced market research techniques are being used by super PACs to target voters and create emotional TV ads.

Manipulation of voters isn’t new, but the science of it is now so well crafted that even vital data about each voter is dug up – often personal information on the Internet.

5. Super PAC ads may not work.

In 2004, Democrats spent more than Republicans in the George Bush-John Kerry contest but Mr. Bush won. Why listen to an ad that may have no effect on the election?

6. Super PACs can more easily go negative than a candidate’s own TV ads.

Allowing more negative ads would only discourage even more people from running for elected office. The quality of candidates may only decline. Comedian Stephen Colbert even tried to pull a prank by claiming he is running for “president of the United States of South Carolina” – with the help of a super PAC.

7. Reforms are afoot to curb or eliminate super PACs.

The most commonly talked about reform is a constitutional amendment, but that’s a long shot. In Massachusetts, Republican incumbent Sen. Scott Brown and his likely challenger, Democrat Elizabeth Warren, are in talks to somehow persuade super PACs not to participate in their closely watched race. It’s unclear how such a cease-fire could be enforced.

8. Can you rely on TV stations to fact-check political ads bysuper PACs?

Probably not. Falsehoods or half-truths have been found in many such ads. Mr. Gingrich had to repudiate an anti-Romney documentary done by a super PAC because of its errors.

For now, a grass-roots boycott of super PAC ads may be the best answer.

Just reach for the remote.

Previous

1 | 2