From the Chicago Tribune

Why all the negative ads?
Published August 24, 2004
One change voters may have noticed in this year's political campaigns shows
up in commercials paid for by candidates. Toward the end of a TV or radio
spot, the candidate comes on to identify himself and say, "I approved this
message."
That development is one of the intended results of the McCain-Feingold
campaign finance bill of 2002. The "stand by your ad" provision makes these
declarations mandatory. The idea was to discourage nasty attack ads by
forcing candidates to personally endorse everything said on their behalf,
making them more accountable for the messages put out by their campaigns and
improving the tone of our elections.
So why has this year's presidential campaign come to resemble a mud fight on
a pig farm? Mainly because of the law's unintended effects. The same
"reforms" that were supposed to clean up the political funding system and
encourage more positive messages have helped produce a campaign notable for
its bitter acrimony and often dubious allegations.
Most of the negative ads are not coming from the official campaigns but from
independent political groups whose primary function is to inflict damage on
one candidate or the other. These first got attention when a liberal
organization called MoveOn.org tried to buy an ad on the Super Bowl telecast
criticizing President Bush, only to be turned away by CBS. The Web site of
another liberal group, Americans Coming Together, features actor Will
Ferrell portraying the president as a clueless klutz.
Lately conservatives have gotten into the game through Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth, which says John Kerry lied about his military service and defamed
his fellow Vietnam veterans as an antiwar activist.
Last week, Kerry said the president was using this group "to do his dirty
work," while demanding that Bush repudiate them. On Monday, the president
responded by calling on all outside groups to cease and desist, while urging
Kerry to join his request. But as long as these groups think they are
helping their side in the campaign, they're not likely to stop, and the
candidates can't make them--because they don't control them, and under the
law, can't control them.
Negative ads have been around for a long time, but they got a big boost from
the new campaign finance law, which imposed strict controls on political
contributions and spending. Unregulated "soft money" that can no longer be
given to political parties has naturally flowed toward the channels that are
still open, which include independent groups known as 527 organizations (for
the section of the tax code that governs them). These committees can
criticize a candidate as much as they want--as long as they don't urge
anyone to vote for his opponent. It's an invitation to take the low road.
None of this comes as a great surprise, since every attempt to cleanse
politics of money has created more problems than it has solved. Die-hard
defenders of McCain-Feingold say the solution is stronger enforcement by the
Federal Election Commission. In fact, the law's consequences suggest that
what our campaigns need is not more regulation, but less.
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune