• by Maarten Albarda , Featured Contributor, October 25, 2024

If I am to believe the articles that explain political advertising and media strategies, they are apparently among the most tested, researched and analyzed ads and ad strategies in the world. Only those ads that perform best in persuasion and memorability are used. And then they are used over and over -- and over and over!-- again.

And we are all sick of them. Candidate A is a despicable danger to society. Candidate B is a person without moral standards who supports letting murderers and child molesters free. America will end if Candidate A/Candidate B will be elected. Claims and counterclaims are supported by links to articles or sources that flash across the screen for a nano-second. Many are sources of questionable repute, or taken completely out of context.

Some ad breaks are nothing but political ads. My brain has turned to mush. I hold the remote ready to mute the ad break or click the “skip” option the second it allows me to do so.

And I sit there wondering how political advertising can be so sucky, if these are indeed the most effective ads coupled with the most effective placement strategy, analyzed by mountains of machine learning. How come Dove or Ford does not attack L’Oreal or Toyota in the same way? If the attack ad is so effective at relaying a message about candidates, why is the same not true for McDonald’s vs. Burger King?

One key reason is that the Federal Trade Commission does not allow attack ads. Except… for political ads. I thought it would be instructive to share their rules here. Political advertising cannot be:

Deceptive: This means the ad contains false or misleading information. For example, an ad that falsely claims a candidate's opponent has voted against a popular issue would be considered deceptive.

Unfair: This means the ad causes substantial harm to consumers that is not outweighed by any benefits. For example, an ad that targets a specific group of people based on their race or ethnicity could be considered unfair.

Political ads must contain:

Substantiation: Political ads must still be supported by evidence, but the level of evidence required may be lower than for commercial advertising.

Truthfulness: While political ads can be exaggerated or opinionated, they cannot contain outright falsehoods.

Fairness: Political ads should not target specific groups based on their race, ethnicity, religion, or other protected characteristics.

As I review the ads that are bombarding every medium known to mankind here in my swing state of North Carolina, I think the Truthfulness and Fairness principles are stretched to their absolute legal limits.

I do not know how long the FTC complaints process takes -- but according to the internet, the quickest is “several weeks.” Given the sheer volume of ads, I assume you won’t get an answer quickly. And based on historical cases, the answer is almost always that freedom of speech outweighs any concerns.

None of that explains why messaging “against” is so prolific and is clearly preferred over messaging “in favor of.” I do not believe there is one person who looks forward to seeing political ads. I cannot imagine that any viewers truly believe that a candidate allowed Fentanyl smuggling or released child rapists. But maybe I am naïve in my understanding of political ads. All I know is that I will be happy when it is all over.