Before President William McKinley was President, he had to overcome being an underdog in an unprecedented campaign. The race for the 25th Presidency of the United States of America in 1896 was one of the most important periods in political history. William McKinley ran an organized, meticulous, and sophisticated campaign that would get him elected narrowly in the popular vote and considerably in the Electoral College. Some scholars consider McKinley’s campaign for the presidency to be the first modern election campaign. His journey started in the primaries when McKinley and Mark Hanna, a Republican businessman from Cleveland, organized a nationwide effort to gain support from delegates. McKinley earned the Republican seat as Presidential candidate and began one of the strongest political campaigns. McKinley capitalized on his personal achievements and previous political records in order to gain favor within the party and with voters. Mainstream Republican voters were attracted to McKinley’s personal achievements, previous political records, and his overall personality, which were capitalized on in his campaign1,2.
Running against McKinley was William Jennings Bryan, a Democrat from Nebraska. Bryan announced he was planning to do the ride a train around the country to appeal to voters from all over, a campaign strategy that had never been used before. McKinley and his team were stumped by this action. Quickly McKinley lost his lead and went from feeling confident to feeling like an underdog in the Presidential race1.
The campaign strategy that McKinley’s team finally agreed on was to have McKinley campaign from his front porch and to allow delegations from anywhere in the country to come and meet him and hear him speak. McKinley worked all day to never misspeak and always seem personable and charismatic. In fact, during some of his remarks he applauded his opponent Bryan for his new campaign strategy and stated that he was a strong competitor. The goal of McKinley’s front-porch campaign was to allow people into his life and create a special experience for American citizens.1 Opening up his personal life to the voters birthed immediate results. When delegations would return home, they spread word of the man in Ohio who was so personable and let voters walk into his home.1 This appeal to people’s need to understand the candidate beyond the issues would have serious effects not only in the 25th Presidential campaign, but all campaigns to follow.Today, it is common for candidates to be active on social media, frequently offering personal details about themselves and their lives. Interviewers request the candidate to speak about their home life and their personal accomplishments, and some voters consider these as equally important to policy stances3. This trend caused personal campaigning to become an institution and has resulted in the practice of mudslinging, or targeted negative attack ads on an opponent’s reputation4.
Today, it is common for candidates to be active on social media, frequently offering personal details about themselves and their lives. Interviewers request the candidate to speak about their home life and their personal accomplishments, and some voters consider these as equally important to policy stances3. This trend caused personal campaigning to become an institution and has resulted in the practice of mudslinging, or targeted negative attack ads on an opponent’s reputation4.
McKinley ran for president in 1896 and while he practiced utilizing personal appeal in order to gain support, he never attacked Bryan or Bryan’s reputation. Introducing personal campaigning to politics was accidental for McKinley, as he was just trying to make the best of a hard situation, but nonetheless McKinley changed politics permanently. The result of personalizing political campaigns has become both positive and negative. While it initially was a strategy to appear more respectable and introduce voters to candidates as people rather than mediums to push an agenda through, it also leaves the candidate vulnerable to attacks of a less understandable nature. Realistically, candidates should be considered good people by those who are voting for them, creating a need for more detail into their personal lives. However, to allow voters to be attracted to candidates on a more personal level also means that voters are open to judge candidates on a more personal level, not only judging their policy stances, but their personal lives as well.
Introducing a personal aspect to candidates’ campaigns has become far more important than ever. Some voters now consider who the candidate is as a person more important than what the candidate’s stances are on the issues. This can be both good and bad. For example, recently Judge Kavanaugh was appointed to the United States Supreme Court. While this was not a political campaign, Judge Kavanaugh’s personal life and past actions became an important factor in his confirmation hearings. Many Americans revolted and believed that no matter what his policy stances are, he should not be confirmed due to his personal life and alleged past actions5.
Another modern example is the most recent Senate race. In 2018, New Jersey Senate candidate Republican Bob Hugin was exposed by his opponent, Democrat Bob Menendez, for being heavily involved in a pharmaceutical company that marks up costs on cancer medication to the point where some patients can no longer afford their medication. Some voters determined that this made Hugin a bad person and refused to vote for him regardless of his stances on the issues, while others took this personal information and related it to how he may behave in Congress and what legislation he might support6. One New Jersey voter, Eva Endahl, stated “I did not vote for Hugin because I believe because of his past actions he is morally corrupt, and I don’t want that type of behavior in my Senator.” While Endahl chose not to vote for Hugin because of his past actions, others might have either excused this behavior, or even saw these actions as a positive indication of his issue stances. Endahl continued, “had I not known about his actions in his personal life, I would definitely have been more inclined to vote for him” (E. Endahl, personal communication, November 26, 2018). Menendez won the 2018 Senate race narrowly7.
The issue today is that the political campaigns we see every cycle are more negative and aggressive than they are positive. By 1960, 10% of ads issued for political campaigns were classified as negative8,9. However, by 2012, less than 15% were classified as positive8,10. As one study states, “Not only has the sheer volume of ads increased with each passing campaign, so too has the proportion of ads devoted to criticizing one’s opponent.” 8,9 Wesleyan Media Project also records statistics related to negative vs. positive ads. Figure 1 shows a recent graph of the proportions of ads in relation to positive or negative connotation11. While the two studies yield differing results, there is a clear indication that the smallest percentage of ads was positively charged.
The effects of negative ad campaigns, or attack ads, are some of the most heavily debated topics in political research. Some researchers found that negative ads put the candidate who issued them at a disadvantage8, while some researchers claim that they truly work to discourage voters from supporting the subject of the ad8. Ultimately, most researchers agree that there is a considerable different between negative ad campaigns that attack an opponent personally and negative issue ads that criticize an opponent’s political record. Brooks and Geer, for example, note that “5% of people view a negative ad focusing on an issue as “unfair,” but 68% view an ad focusing on an ‘extramarital affair’ as ‘unfair’.”12The only issue more debated than the ethicality of negative ads is the correlation between negative ad campaigns and voter turnout. While some research claims that negatively charged ads creates demobilization, others state that negative ads actually increase voter turnout, and there is research that supports the null hypothesis that negative ads and voter turnout are unrelated8.
Today, having negative personal attributes and decisions highlighted during a campaign is ultimately detrimental. While a criminal should not be encouraged to serve the government, more often than not, negative ads do not uncover an issue that serious with a candidate. Most commonly, attack ads discredit a candidate’s character, marriage, morals, or family history.
For the American democracy to work at its highest capability, voters should be focused on a candidate’s issue stances and political track record, not whether or not they do something in their personal life. One example of this voter diversion is conversation over whether or not a candidate attends church. Unfortunately, there is some evidence to suggest that attending church every Sunday actually gives a candidate a leg up in an election. The issue here is that voters were not considering the politician’s motivation or intentions when they automatically prefer a religious candidate over a non-religious one. With the election of a non-religious Republican President, Donald Trump, some political researchers are saying that the faith test is no longer important. Brett O’Donnell, a speechwriter and consultant to the GOP, told the Washington Post that, “It used to be that you had to pass a faith test. Because national security and voter anger at Washington and the political system are the two guiding principles, I think that qualification of are-you-religious has diminished.”13 Although the faith test is no longer prominent, issues that mirror this voting shortcut still exist.
In the past, politicians as well as citizens have taken issue with attack ads. In 2002, for example, the Stand By Your Ad (SBYA) provision was enacted. This provision required that any person running for a state or federal office must display “a statement by the candidate that identifies the candidate and states that the candidate has approved the communication” along with their advertisement14. SBYA was designed to discourage the use of attack ads, assuming candidates would not like to tag their name and face with a seal of approval on an ad that attacks another candidate. While the bill passed, and candidates are now legally required to endorse their own ads, the bill has not succeeded. The number and proportion of negatively charged ads still continues to grow.10
The hope for attack ads to be used less was not lost with the fizzle impact of SBYA. In 2010, the House Democrats introduced a bill titled The Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections Act (DISCLOSE Act) that would require heads of organizations that fund political advertisements to appear on-camera and follow the stand by your ad requirement. The bill also proposed that US companies with twenty or more percent of foreign ownership would not be able to contribute to political candidates’ campaigns15. This bill further elaborated the effort of SBYA to make candidates and contributors feel more accountable for attack ads. However, due to the stricter proposed restrictions on campaign funding, the bill failed in the Senate in 2010. The DISCLOSE Act has been proposed twice more since 2010 as the Democrats still hope to reduce attack ads, but it has not yet passed.
Similar to how research on negative ads and their effects often contradict past work, the suggestions to reform personal campaigning vary. Joan Phillips, a professor at the Quinlan School of Business of Loyola University Chicago, claims, “We’re not saying positive ads aren’t good, it’s just that negative ads are effective”15. Her research in 2004 attempted to uncover what effects negative ads have on the voter. Her study group took a pretest to determine their views on George W. Bush and candidate John Kerry and then viewed one of four ads. Following the viewing, the participants took a post test and were asked to rate their favorability toward one man or the other. Phillips states that “roughly 14 percent of the students said the attack on their candidate made them support him even more… But an equal percentage of students said the advertisement weakened their support and caused them to move closer to the opponent—the one who ran the negative ad.”16 Essentially, Phillips argues that so long as one voter changes their mind due to a negative ad, those ads will still run. The bottom line for her is about who gets more votes, and if running an attack ad will help a candidate succeed, then it’s just a strategy that should be employed.
It is important to note that the SBYA, DISCLOSE, and the Phillips study all do not specify the intention of the ads they target. As stated previously, researchers, politicians, and citizens view negative issue ads differently from attack ads. These three cases do not clarify a use of one, the other, or both.13, 14, 15
The way I propose reforming the use of personal campaigns would primarily focus on the use of negative/attack ads. In regard to the SBYA provision, I would suggest ensuring that accountability standards be upheld. Although there has yet to be a prominent effect on the amount of negatively charged ads being issued, I believe that if candidates were not required to personally approve of each ad, there would be far more attack ads. Additionally, super PACs and other major contributors to a candidate’s effort should have to include a logo or affiliation stamp on each ad, as suggested in the DISCLOSE Act. Not only does this impact what ads corporations would allow candidates to present, but those corporations would be more inclined to support a candidate whose views most properly aligns with the company’s mission. Finally, I would appeal to the governing institution, whether that be the House of Representatives, Senate, State Legislature, or the White House to encourage elections absent of negatively charged ads.
There is a more lenient way to address the issue of negative ads, which is to require all campaign ads to specifically prove their relevance to the office a candidate is running for. However, this contains loopholes. A candidate could easily argue that exposing a candidate’s religious affiliation impacts their views on abortion and same-sex marriage, or that a candidate’s extramarital affair proves they are unfaithful to their word. Herald & Review points out a 2010 ruling allows super PACs to spend as much money as they please to endorse a candidate. This means that those organizations can issue attack ads with no accountability17. My reform would require super PACs to obey the same accountability standards as candidates.
The goal of eliminating negative ads is to bring the focus of political campaigns back to politics. In the realm of campaigning, issuing an advertisement costs a considerable amount of money. The Small Business Administration reported that producing a television ad could cost upwards of $20,00018, excluding buying airtime and feedback studies. This advertising money could go much further with an issue ad. The goal of campaigns is to determine which candidate most closely aligns with the voter’s personal views. When attack ads are used the voters don’t learn about how a candidate feels about tax cuts or public education, they only learn that the other candidate has done something they aren’t proud of. This leaves the voter to choose whichever candidate they think is a better person rather than which candidate will do what the voters want in office.
Negative ad campaigns are also used often when a candidate wants to secure a nomination. The Phillips research shows that if negative ads have an impact on voters it is small, yet present. Those few swayed votes could change an election outcome15. However, using a negative ad, which is unrelated to the candidate’s platform, to win an election calls into question the reliability of that vote. Had an unrelated piece of information about an opponent not been revealed would that candidate still have won the election?
The advantage of relying more heavily on issue ads rather than attack ads means that the voter gets to know each candidate better through their political stances. The issue of whether or not they attend church services is no longer a factor unless it directly impacts their political action, like in the case of abortion. However, reforming political campaigns in this way leaves a door open for candidates who have done questionable things in the past to be elected. Had it not been revealed that Bob Hugin was involved in a pharmaceutical scandal, he could have received more support and could have even won the election18. Negative ads will always be a part of campaigns. My research has convinced me that, like Phillips’ study showed, no matter how many people in America dislike attack ads; so long as one vote is flipped they will be an integral part of campaigning. Idealistically, the American people will see a decrease in the use of negative/attack ads in future election cycles.
President William McKinley capitalized on running a personal campaign. He made he platform about himself and welcomed delegations into his home. This voluntary offering of personal information allowed voters to see him as a strong politician as well as a man they can support personally. McKinley exemplifies what I believe to be the most effective form of personal campaigning. His method attracted voters initially through personal sentiments and secured their vote with his policy stances. The candidates today often use personal campaigning to attack their opponent and keep the issue ads separate. With the technology available in 2018, such as television, radio and the Internet, candidates could explore McKinley’s strategy and take it to new, extremely successful levels.
[1] Morgan, H. W. (2001, February 18). “The View from the Front Porch: William McKinley and the Campaign of 1896”. Retrieved from https://www.rbhayes.org/hayes/the-view-from-the-front-porch-william-mckinley-and-the-campaign-of-1896/
[2] Carlisle, J. E., & Patton, R. C. (2013). Is Social Media Changing How We Understand Political Engagement? An Analysis of Facebook and the 2008 Presidential Election. Political Research Quarterly, 66(4), 883–895. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913482758
[3] Kinney, C., Jr. (n.d.). Political Mudslinging: Definition & Examples. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from https://study.com/academy/lesson/political-mudslinging-definition-examples.html
[4] Sullivan, K. (2018, October 05). Ex-justice Stevens suggests Kavanaugh should not sit on Supreme Court. Retrieved November 29, 2018, from https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/
politics/supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-kavanaugh/index.html
[5] Star-Ledger Editorial Board. (2018, March 04). Is Menendez’s Republican challenger even more ethically challenged? | Editorial. Retrieved from https://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/03/is_menendezs_republican_challenger_even_more_ethic.html
[6] Washington Post Staff. (2018, November 28). New Jersey election results 2018. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/election-results/new-jersey/?utm_term=.6be5b8a5452c
[7] Mattes, K., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2014). The positive case for negative campaigning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[8] Dowling, C. M., & Krupnikov, Y. (2016, November). The Effects of Negative Advertising. Retrieved from http://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/
[9] Fowler, E. F., & Ridout, T. N. (2012). Negative, angry and ubiquitous: Political advertising in 2012. The Forum, 10(4), 51–61.
[10] Wesleyan Media Project. (2018, October 30). 61% Increase in Volume of Negative Ads. Retrieved from http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases/103018/
[11] Brooks, D. J., & Geer, J. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 1–16.
[12] Boorstein, M., & Bailey, S. P. (2016, January 27). Republicans prefer a religious candidate. But they’re willing to give Donald Trump a pass. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/01/27/religious-republicans-normally-want-a-president-like-them-donald-trump-is-an-exception/?utm_term=.6e564faf8e24
[13] Gale, K., Hawkins, B., Hawkins, R., Magleby, D., Monson, J., & Patterson, K. (2005). “Elections”: Effects of the Stand by Your Ad Provision on Attitudes about Candidates and Campaigns. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35(4), 771-783. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27552728
[14] DISCLOSE Act, Fed. Stat. H.R. 6239 (2010).
[15] Phillips, J. (n.d.). Why attack ads work. Retrieved from https://www.luc.edu/quinlan/stories/archive/why-attack-ads-work.shtml
[16] Erickson, K. (2012, September 30). Close races bring out the mudslinging worst in political campaigns. Retrieved from https://herald-review.com/news/local/close-races bring-out-the-mudslinging-worst-in-political-campaigns/article_a6b0191a-0ab9-11e2-ae8a-001a4bcf887a.html
[17] Aland, M. (2017, November 28). Local & National TV Advertising Costs & How to Advertise 2017. Retrieved from https://fitsmallbusiness.com/tv-advertising/
[18] Tamari, J., & Seidman, A. (2018, October 11). A dilemma for New Jersey Democrats: An unpopular senator, or Trump’s GOP. Retrieved from http://www2.philly.com/philly/news/politics/elections/a-dilemma-for-new-jersey-democrats-an-unpopular-senator-or-trumps-gop-20181011.html
Patience Baldacci 