Special Interest Attack Ad Campaign Questions
Desert Observer's pageJames Thurber in 1939 said "You can fool too many of the people too much of the time", and that's often true in politics when it comes to electing candidates to public office. Special interests rely upon the ability to confuse, insinuate, attack, smear, defame, denigrate and ridicule candidates through advertising, mailers, telephone and word-of-mouth. It's a nasty way to do business, but it seems to work, for it serves to "....fool too many of the people too much of the time".
A recent Sacramento Bee article described how special labor union interests had destroyed the candidacy of expected front runner Christopher Cabaldon through the use of attack ads. The report noted that money spent on numerous response ads depicting the candidate favorably simply failed to win voters over and the conclusion was that attack ads are the ones that work to best advantage.
If it's true that voters are easily fooled much of the time, is there any hope for democracy? If attack ads determine the outcome of an election, then the interests with the most money are destined to win. Is that not equivalent to buying a candidate or a seat in the legislature? If your candidate is not the one favored by the attack ad interests, is there any point in voting?
Here in Coachella Valley both Republicans and Democrats witnessed huge sums of outside special interest money being spent to influence voters. A substantial portion was spent on attack ads. When voters view such ads and their vote is based on such influence, where's the room for issues, candidate qualifications, and experience?
Did the results of last Tuesday's primary election really represent the independent will of the people or are those vote tallies indicative of attack ad subconscious brainwashing?
Bond Shands
Palm Springs
June 11, 2008
Comments