Review of the 2006 Campaign Ads

The Whoppers Of 2006
We review the worst deceptions from House and Senate campaigns (10 Republican and 5 Democratic).

Republican Mudslinging On An Industrial Scale
The National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC) attack-ad factory grinds out some smears we find to be misleading or false.

According to the Federal Election Commission, so far in this election cycle the NRCC has spent $41.9 million attacking Democratic opponents and $5 million supporting its own candidates, roughly an 8:1 negative-to-positive ratio. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has spent $18 million and $3.1 million, respectively, for a 5:1 ratio.

Of the 115 NRCC ads, we judged 91 per cent to be purely negative. The DCCC’s 104 ads included 81 per cent we found to be purely negative. We found very few on either side that were all positive, but the DCCC’s contained more mixed or “comparative” ads –a mix of positive statements about the supported candidate and negative statements about the opponent.

What stood out in the NRCC’s ads was a pronounced tendency to be petty and personal, and sometimes careless with the facts. We found 29 of the NRCC’s ads to be assaults of a personal nature on a candidate’s character or private professional dealings, rather than critiques of his or her views or votes while in federal, state or local office. Applying the same screen to the DCCC, we came up with 15 such ads, and several of those were comparative, rather than purely negative.

When Democrats Attack
Ads accuse Republican House members of supporting oil and drug companies – and Bush. We find some factual stumbles.
Gauging by the attack ads flowing from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the party’s House contenders are running against Exxon, Pfizer and Bush. The ads tie Republican House candidates to unpopular industries and an unpopular President. Some of these ads are exaggerations. At times DCCC ads run completely off the rails of factual accuracy.

The 2006 Awards
We laughed, we cried. Now that the campaign is over, we recognize some notable ads we didn’t examine before.

Regards,

Jim