It’s still August, and already the political advertising is becoming intolerable. A couple of months from now, when the majority of 30-second spots on television will consist of political attacks, the informed electorate will be even more fed up with government and the people who aspire to run it.
The worst of the advertising comes from those “independent” groups that instruct the viewer to call a certain number and give the candidate a piece of your mind.
What happens if you actually call one of those numbers?
The three times I tried it, the call went directly to the candidate’s congressional office: Mark Udall, in two cases (two different numbers); Marilyn Musgrave in the other.
The anti-Bob Schaffer ads (and all of these ads are anti-the other guy, not pro-my guy) don’t have a number to call. Perhaps that’s because Schaffer doesn’t have a current congressional office to pester.
Needless to say, none of these ads inviting you to “call so-and-so” is a model of civil, high-tone campaigning. They tend to be grainy, dark and negative. The voice-overs are sinister. The warnings are dire.
In recent advertising, Udall has been blamed for rising gasoline prices, union election-rigging and wasteful spending on such frou-frou as lobsters, ballet and a San Francisco park.
His opponent in the U.S. Senate race, Schaffer, shows up with a Nixonesque 5 o’clock shadow. A bearded, cigar-chomping representative of “big oil” looms in the background.
But the worst image is that of Musgrave, looking large, grumpy and unkempt in an ad sponsored by Defenders of Wildlife. Defenders of wildlife, offenders of taste. She, too, is to blame for the gas-price problem — but, of course, for totally different reasons from those blamed on Udall.
Both major parties have responded to expensive gasoline by proposing solutions that the other party finds unacceptable. This is the way of politics today, especially during a campaign. Compromise is surrender; we don’t want to accomplish anything, we just want to make the other side look bad.
The Republicans demonize taxes; Democrats demonize vouchers. They’re not convincing anyone; they’re just reinforcing what their loyal base already believes.
Anti-Udall ads are sponsored by the Club for Growth, Associated Builders & Contractors, Freedom’s Watch and , which doesn’t provide a phone number but offers website help in writing a nasty message to the candidate.
The anti-Schaffer ad comes from the Colorado First Project, which doesn’t even have a website because it says it’s trying to keep a low profile.
Such independent groups are classified under different parts of the IRS code as tax exempt. So-called 527s were once all the rage, but many now are 501(c)(4) groups, which are not required to disclose contributors’ names.
Unless they want to lose their tax-exempt status, none of them can work directly with, or say “vote for,” a candidate. That’s why there’s so little positive advertising and a whole lot more tearing the other candidate down.
Because there has been more anti-Udall advertising on recently, his office gets the most calls. But, hey, says spokeswoman Tara Trujillo, “It gives us the opportunity to get the truth out about Mark’s record.”
Guy Short in Musgrave’s office says it hasn’t been too much of a bother, but then there haven’t been as many anti-Musgrave ads. And the calls, Short says, “run about 50-50” between critics and supporters.
The main effect of all this negativity is to suppress turnout. In the three most hotly contested congressional primaries earlier this month, turnout was a third or less of party registration. Even among basically like-minded partisans, there is no shortage of attack advertising.
Fred Brown (punditfwb@aol.com), retired Capitol Bureau chief for The Denver Post, is also a political analyst for 9News. His column appears twice a month.
