It’s election time again, and political advertisements have once again flooded our favorite television shows and even our mailboxes telling us who to vote for. So if you enjoy watching two candidates having a verbal fight to the death on your television screen, then you must have been jumping for joy this year.
Why, you may ask? It’s because of the Supreme Court Case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided on Jan. 21, 2010. The case itself originated from a dispute between Citizens United, a non-profit organization, and the FEC. Citizens United wanted to use Hillary Clinton’s image in ads promoting their documentary of her life during the 2008 Democratic primary ó filmed from a conservative perspective.
This transformed into an even greater debate over the restrictions of monetary involvement of corporations and special interest groups in political campaigns which they believed violated their First Amendment rights. The final 5-4 decision ruled in favor of Citizens United, which opened the flood gates to more corporate investment in politics.
Corporations still can’t directly hand over money to the candidates they support, but there is nothing stopping them from creating non-profit organizations to spout out their message with ad after ad. In that regard, this is no different from past elections. What has changed is that corporations now possess more freedom to invest without limit in political campaigns, giving them even more power in Washington.
But even though the number of political ads have gone up this election, do they really affect our vote? The majority of ads you see on television are attack ads, which dish out negative information that is more frequently than not, items taken out of context amd do not always portray the actual ideas and opinions of the politician in question. When these ads are true, it may be good political strategy to use them, but I think you would be hard pressed to find people who after watching these ads spend time and give any thought to whether or not there is any merit to what they are being told. I know that I don’t.
So besides lining the pockets of television stations, what is the point of all these attack ads? They do nothing to accurately portray the political views of the politician being blasted, and after the assault is over all the the opposing candidate has to say is flowery rhetoric that basically means “I am better than this person.” These ads do not show the real position of anybody, and this turns elections into popularity contests.
In the end, I see attack ads as the last line of strategy for desperate people who care more about winning a political position than actually proving their merits to their constituents. This is a part of why Americans have to deal with partisan politics in Washington. With no information on what either candidate wants to achieve, it seems that most people vote based on party allegiance instead of picking the best person available for the job. If our country is going to progress, Americans need to look past the propaganda of both parties and start putting the right people in office. Read. Research. Think. That is our duty to this country. That is our privilege as Americans.
Bill Burkhart is a contributor for the Voice. He can be reached for comment at WBurkhart13@wooster.edu.