– Tanner Younie (FHSU political science student)
What would you do with $1 billion? That’s right, I said billion. If it were given to me I would buy myself a large house down south where it is always warm, I would try to make some wise investments that would allow my money to grow, and I would also place some in the bank for safe keeping. Then when I felt comfortable my money was secure I would retire young.
I may even spend a little on myself – I have always wanted a shiny ’69 Chevy Camaro with enough power to shake a building’s foundation and get the attention of any passerby. Heck with that kind of money I could even help my parents’ out with their taxes! But I digress.
Now what would happen if you donated this kind of money to a political party campaign? According to an advertising analysis completed by the Wesleyan Media Project from January 1, 2013 to October 9, 2014 nearly $1 billion was spent on political advertising for this midterm election. $340 million was spent on Senate ads, $430 million on gubernatorial races and $160 million was spent on House races. Some may argue that this amount of spending is necessary, but do we really need to see one opponent bashing another’s character three times every commercial break? I don’t think so, especially when voter turnout for the 2014 midterms was the lowest since World War II with just 36.4 percent of registered voters showing up at the polls.
Is it possible that low voter turnout could be associated with the increase in negative advertising endorsed by political candidates? If I did not feel it was my obligation as a citizen of the United States to vote I probably wouldn’t after being influenced by all the negative ads. In the end neither candidate looks appealing. In a study completed by the Wesleyan Media Project it was found that 44.3% of U.S. Senate advertisements, 47% of U.S. House advertisements, and 50.8% of gubernatorial advertisements were negative in nature, with contrast and positive advertisements each taking up about 25% each. Contrast advertisements are those that mention both a favored candidate and an opponent, so they can also have a negative overtone. Kansas had the least positive U.S. Senate Race with only 4% being positive, 47.6% contrast, and 48.4% negative though its gubernatorial race was second most positive behind Maryland.
The advertising was also repetitive when it came to political issues and emotional appeals. Twenty-six percent of pro-Republican advertising for House races mentioned both Obamacare and taxes, and 29 percent of pro-Democrat advertising mentioned taxes. The redundancy of the messages pushes voters into losing interest, almost in the same way as a song gets stale after listening to it a couple dozen times on repeat.
Sixty-three percent of House and Senate advertisements appealed to anger compared to 41.5 percent for enthusiasm (more than one emotional appeal can be made in an advertisement.) These emotional appeals may be what is causing such a polarity within congress. If all one does is portray his opponent and his opponent’s party negatively, he eventually will show that anger in the workplace causing a larger rift between the parties and the voting population.
I believe that if the $1 billion spent on this year’s campaign advertisements were utilized in a more positive, enthusiastic, and informative matter that voter turnout would increase and that the overall faith in congress would increase. If the anger and negativity in political campaign advertisements are any indication of how a candidate will lead, then we can expect nothing more from them when they attain their political position. As the saying goes, you practice how you play.
For more advertising statistics from the 2014 midterm election visit the media project at Wesleyan University.