He is correct -- negative advertising DOES damage the system. I also hope he
conveys that opinion to the king of negative advertising -- Mitt Romney.
The content of the negative ads and the failure to disclose who are behind the
negative ads are two separate issues. Most agree that disclosure should be
required. I am not sure whether the content harms the system. How else do the
voters find out who violates campaign laws; who favors subsidzing hotels, who
wants to eliminate the independence of the consumer services division, who is a
qualified auditor etc. If the voters all read newspapers or their electronic
equivalents, the need for negative attacks would decrease.
It is, at best, disingenuous for candidates to say they have "no
control" over negative ads run against their opponents. Of course they have
control. And even if by some stretch of the imagination there was no
collaboration between candidates and super PACs, they could/should have the guts
to stand up and condemn negative personal attacks against their opponents. Naive
on my part? Probably. But the utter lack of civility in political campaigns has,
IMO, reached an all-time low. It does, in fact, make me want to turn my back on
anyone and everyone who's associated with it.
That's funny that he speaks out against negative campaigning AFTER the
election. I could have told him months ago when I received anti-Daw fliers at my
door from that Pac in Nevada that negative campaigning needed to stop. It
wasn't so much a pro-Layton flier as it was an anti-Daw one. Yet, negative campaigning still works with astonishing results. Perhaps
instead of condoning negative campaigning with our votes, we speak out against
it with our votes. We talk and talk about how we hate negative campaigns yet
continually fall for them.
Not so much bothered by the attack, as the lack of truth in the attacks. Truth in Advertising doesn't apply to campaign ads, (go figure) just like
limits in which individuals can contribute to campaigns why there's
no ceiling on the Corp donations.Equal, but some are more equal?
If a "negative" ad tells the truth about a person, what is wrong with
that? I have never heard anyone say that the things in the ads against Reyes --
his paying cash to a consultant under the table, and previous problems with road
rage -- were false. Of course, he would like to hide those things, but I think
they are fair game. What is disingenous is Reyes complaining about the PAC ads,
when his own materials -- the stuff put out by his own campaign -- was snide and
negative. Reyes' own signs said, "Real lawyer, Real integrity," as
though Swallow was not a real lawyer and had no real integrity. Swallow's
campaign didn't do anything like that.
What is just amazing is how the Utah media keeps quoting Chambliss. What is our
facisnation with Ivory Tower thinkers with limited, real world experience? He
is politically tone deaf. Whether you like Swallow or not, this doesn't
carry over into a general election. Swallow beats whatever-his-name-is the
Democrats put forward by 20%+.