Desperate candidates’ political ads are crossing ethical lines

Once upon a time, at least in my misty recollection, candidates thought that losing a political campaign wasn’t the worst thing that could happen. The worst that could happen was their losing their integrity.

Now, though, candidates concerned about losing seem ready to try anything. AdImpact estimates that this midterm election cycle will see more than $11 billion in ad spending, a record that exceeds even the 2024 presidential election cycle. All that money is like water behind a dam: candidates and political action committees feel pressure to spend it. And it seems like anything goes.

What seems to be forgotten is the concept that ads can reflect poorly on the candidate’s judgment. They backfire. Not only do they fail to move the electorate to vote for the candidate, they destroy the candidate’s reputation. That’s a very expensive way to sabotage yourself.

These ads reflect very poor judgment

The most notable example, of course, is Vivek Ramaswamy’s recent ad. Ramaswamy, a Republican, is running against Amy Acton, a Democrat, for the office of governor of Ohio. Acton’s stepfather was indicted for raping her as a child, and she is estranged from her mother, Donna Arthur. Ramaswamy featured Acton’s estranged mother in an ad, saying that her daughter Amy, his opponent, was a habitual liar.

Many news outlets reported the backstory of Acton’s abuse by her stepfather. It’s pretty clear that the ad crossed a line; even Ohio’s current Republican governor Mike DeWine said it was troubling and recommended that the ad be withdrawn. According to Axios, a poll after the ad had been airing showed that Acton had gained three percentage points of support and Ramaswamy had lost three.

Ramaswamy spent $4 million dollars to stand with an accused supporter of child abuse. That was a poor investment and will doubtless damage Ramaswamy’s reputation for a long time.

Consider another example. Steve Hilton, Republican candidate for governor of California, produced and broadcast this ad, called “Just Try It, California.”

The point, of course, is to attempt to persuade Californians that they should consider voting Republican for governor. But once again, the candidate’s judgment is questionable. The ad uses the trope of women curious about a lesbian experience to grab the viewer’s attention. It accomplishes that goal — it’s closer to soft porn than any political ad I’ve ever seen.

Hilton is behind by double digits in the polls. His ad says nothing about what he would do to improve things in California, or what his opponent, Xavier Becerra, would do to make them worse.

To my eye, this comes off as desperate, vacuous, and exploitive. And it’s not just me. Sonja Shaw, another Republican nominee for California office in this cycle, called it “creepy, weird, disturbing garbage.” The Republican candidate for California attorney general, emphatically denounced “the use of young women as a political tool.”

And Xavier Becerra, writing about Medicare for All, suggested, “Steve, just try it!”

Hilton has clearly lost a lot of respect here.

Post-modern politics

The billions of dollars spent on political advertising have made viewers jaded and resistant. Attack ads used to work. Now they sometimes backfire.

There’s a lesson here, and it’s not just for political advertisers.

If you have to embrace ethically troubling images and statements because it’s the only way to get attention, it’s just not worth it. It doesn’t work, and it does backfire.

There is a line. Don’t cross it. Because once you do, there is no going back.