Civility in Political Campaigns Turns Out to Be a Fad

So much for the 9/11 effect on politics.

Despite hints that the political dialogue after last year’s terrorist attacks would take a more civil tone, the 2002 congressional campaign is winding up with a barrage of mudslinging, name-calling and downright nasty advertising.

It reverses a trend, documented in a study by the University of Wisconsin Advertising Project, which found that for several months after the terrorist attacks, political ads were considerably more positive in tone than in the past.

But in the last six weeks, the study found, mudslinging has returned with a vengeance.

“It’s back to negativity as usual,” said Kenneth M. Goldstein, a professor who conducted the study.

In some races, the negative ads -- or backlash against them -- is having real effect on the course of the campaign.

In Montana, a Republican Senate candidate stopped campaigning because of an ad that he said suggested he was homosexual. In New York, a House Republican’s race for reelection went from a slam-dunk to a toss-up because of backlash against an attack ad he ran. In Colorado, a tight Senate race has been marked by a steady diet of negative campaigning, which analysts say is why a big chunk of the electorate remains uncommitted to either candidate.

The negative tone also may explain why experts predict middling turnout in virtually every state on Tuesday, even though several contests will determine control of the House and Senate.

Advertising in the race for California governor has been unremittingly negative, due largely to the campaign waged by incumbent Democrat Gray Davis, starting in last winter’s Republican primary. In an extraordinary move, Davis intervened in the GOP contest by sponsoring roughly $10 million in negative ads that targeted the Republican front-runner, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan. That helped long-shot businessman Bill Simon Jr. defeat Riordan -- and gave Davis his preferred opponent for the fall matchup.

After just a few months’ pause, Davis resumed the attack strategy, this time savaging Simon’s business record and integrity in a barrage of spots that has scarcely let up since early June. Simon, with less money to spend, has also taken a largely negative tack in his ads, assailing Davis’ record.

But elsewhere in the country, the tone was different earlier in the election cycle. Goldstein’s study of congressional campaign ads found that in the months before this year’s anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, 82% of the ads paid for by House and Senate candidates and 53% of those financed by political parties were positive -- up from 73% and 14% respectively during the comparable period in the 2000 election cycle.

After the Sept. 11 anniversary, the percentage of positive ads dropped to 65% for those paid for by candidates and 27% for those financed by the parties. In one week in October, only 43% of all kinds of ads were positive.

Rachel Gorlin, a Democratic media consultant, said that the national trauma of last year’s terrorist attacks had a lasting effect on the ads she produced for politicians this year. For the first time, she said, she made a point of including American flags in them: “I made a conscious decision to avoid imagery disturbing to people.”

But with election day approaching, and the stakes so high, it’s not surprising that the gloves came off in many races.

Goldstein said that ads critiquing an opponent’s personality and positions on issues are not necessarily bad. Negative ads, he said, often provide more information to voters than positive ones promoting a given candidate’s virtues.

But experts agree candidates get into trouble when their attack ads are based on false information or seem to voters to go too far.

That may have happened in New York. GOP Rep. Felix J. Grucci Jr. thrust his reelection contest into a maelstrom of controversy with a radio ad that accused his opponent, Tim Bishop, of turning his back on rape victims while president of Southampton College and of falsifying the school’s rape statistics.

Bishop said the ad was inaccurate, and a newspaper editorialized that the ad brought “nasty new meaning to the word ‘scurrilous.’ ”

Grucci’s campaign stood by the ad’s accuracy, but it is no longer running. Meanwhile, Grucci’s race has abruptly turned from an easy ride for him to one of the closest House contests.

One of the campaign’s most controversial ads was run in Georgia by GOP Senate challenger Saxby Chambliss. It featured images of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, and questioned Democratic Sen. Max Cleland’s “courage to lead” because he has opposed aspects of President Bush’s proposal for a homeland security department.

Cleland, a Vietnam veteran who lost three limbs in combat, called the ad “character assassination.” Faced with a barrage of criticism, Chambliss’ campaign changed the ad to drop the images of Bin Laden and Hussein.

In House races, Republicans have targeted several Democratic candidates with hard-hitting ads attacking their business and financial practices.

In a newly drawn district in Nevada, the GOP has highlighted the ethics problems of Democratic candidate Dario Herrera, a county commissioner who has been accused of improperly landing a no-bid contract to do work for the Las Vegas Housing Authority.

“Character is an important issue in elections,” said Steve Schmidt, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Democratic strategists concede that the attack ads have contributed to dimming their hopes of winning a seat once considered promising for them.

Democrats have done their share of attack ads -- most notoriously in Montana, where polls have shown Sen. Max Baucus running way ahead of his GOP opponent, Mike Taylor.

This fall, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ran an ad criticizing Taylor’s past management of a beauty school. More controversial than the words were the pictures shown of Taylor as a beautician giving a facial to a man. Taylor claimed it implied falsely that he was homosexual, and in early October quit the contest. His name remains on the ballot, and he recently said he would resume the race “to save our democracy from the smear campaigns.”

Candidates from both parties have been hurling insults in the Colorado Senate race, which the University of Wisconsin study found had the second-highest percentage of negative ads in the country. Ranked first was the New Jersey Senate race, where Republicans appeared headed for victory by spotlighting ethical questions surrounding Democratic incumbent Robert Torricelli. He has since dropped out of the race and his replacement, former Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, is now favored to win.

In Colorado, GOP Sen. Wayne Allard and his Democratic opponent, Tom Strickland, have been attacking each other for months. Last spring, Strickland ran an ad blasting Allard for opposing federal accounting rules that he said might have averted the collapse of Enron Corp.

Allard fired back with an ad noting that Strickland, a former U.S. attorney who is now a lawyer, had lobbied for another spectacular business failure, Global Crossing Ltd.

Floyd Ciruli, a nonpartisan pollster in Denver, said the effect of the mudfest has been to make it harder for either candidate to win crucial swing voters.

“They are in so much mud, [the candidates] can’t get any traction,” Ciruli said.

*

Times staff writer Mark Z. Barabak contributed to this report.