The 527 season opened early this year, in mid-August, with a dark and clumsy “Both Ways Bob” TV ad in the governor’s campaign. It was two to three weeks earlier than the traditional Labor Day start of mud wrestling.
This is only the beginning. Between now and the Nov. 7 election, 527s will be responsible for most of the edgiest, nastiest political advertising on television. And it will be aired, as usual, so frequently that viewers will be tempted to turn their TVs into aquariums. (Even earlier, in July, a Republican 527, the Trailhead Group, aired a radio ad attacking Democratic candidate Bill Ritter’s record as Denver district attorney.)
Here’s a naïve idea: Why don’t 527s try running ads that support the candidates they like instead of attacking the ones they don’t?
The easy answer is that, under election laws and section 527 of the IRS Code (thus the name), these independent political organizations aren’t allowed to communicate with candidates. If they do, they and the candidate can get in trouble.
“Both Ways Bob” is sponsored by a Washington-based 527 called Citizens for Progress. That’s another thing about 527s. Besides being heavily attack-oriented, they have generic names that reveal almost nothing about who’s behind them.
A 527 group is allowed to raise unlimited amounts of money to get out the vote or to produce advertising and mailings. The no-contact restriction was intended as a reform, but like so many reforms, it has been subverted by clever spinners and lawyers. So instead of reforming, 527s have further coarsened the debate and increased the influence of money in politics.
Political consultant Eric Sondermann estimates that well in excess 90 percent of 527 ads attack rather than praise. And, he says, they can hurt a candidate. That “Both Ways Bob” ad is unlikely to convince many unaffiliated voters to vote for Bill Ritter. They may very well find the ad objectionable, and empathize with Ritter’s opponent, Bob Beauprez.
Some day, some clever 527 will produce an ad attacking its own pet candidate – an ad so unfair and repugnant that voters, justifiably assuming the opponent’s supporters paid for it, will turn against the hapless fellow because of his (apparent) side’s depraved tactics.
In American politics today, there seems to be more voting to punish bad behavior than to reward the good. If the Republicans are in trouble in 2006, as polls suggest, it’s because voters feel Republicans haven’t done a good job of running things and need to be replaced. It’s not that voters want to reward the Democrats; they want to send a message to the Republicans in charge.
There are rare exceptions to the negative nature of independent advertising. One was the successful 2004 campaign of Bob Bacon, now a Democratic state senator from Fort Collins. His campaign ads, aired on Denver stations, showed him talking to teachers, students and other potential constituents looking avuncular and senatorial. Very positive, but it raised suspicions.
There was a complaint, charging illegal communication between Bacon’s campaign and allegedly independent supporters, including the Poudre and Colorado Education Associations. After all, how can you take video of a candidate without breaking the no-contact barrier?
An administrative law judge found in Bacon’s favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed the finding. The Colorado Education Association is appealing.
The CEA’s Deborah Fallin says there needs to be clarification of what’s permissible contact between an advocacy group and a candidate. Does the appellate court’s decision mean, she asks, that “no one paid by us can even talk to a candidate?”
So there are perils to going positive. Knowledgeable political types insist negative tactics work. Voters are attuned to finding fault. Negatives linger in the memory longer. It’s a primitive survival instinct, an echo from caveman days. It’s more important to know there’s a saber-toothed cat in the neighborhood than to remember little Ugg’s above-average SAT scores.
Then again, perhaps one reason negative political advertising works is its inevitability. Everyone eventually uses it, and someone always wins.
Fred Brown (punditfwb@aol.com), retired Capitol Bureau chief for The Denver Post, is also a political analyst for 9News.
