Abstract
The volume of televised political advertising plateaued in 2014, as did levels of negativity. Yet the most interesting story about this advertising was the extensive involvement of outside groups, many of which did not disclose their donors. In many of the most competitive Senate races, groups surpassed the parties – and sometimes even the candidates – as the primary sponsors of political advertising. We speculate on what these patterns from 2014 are likely to mean for advertising in 2016.
About the authors
Erika Franklin Fowler is Assistant Professor of Government at Wesleyan University and Co-Director of the Wesleyan Media Project. She specializes in political communication – local media and campaign advertising in particular – and her work on local news coverage of politics and policy has been published in political science, communication, law/policy, and medical journals.
Travis N. Ridout is Thomas S. Foley Distinguished Professor of Government and Public Policy and Associate Professor in the School of Politics, Philosophy, and Public Affairs at Washington State University. He is Co-Director of the Wesleyan Media Project and author of The Persuasive Power of Campaign Advertising (Temple University Press, 2011).
Acknowledgments
We have many to thank for their assistance in making this research a reality, including Michael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project; Laura Baum, WMP project manager; and Robert McGuire of the Center for Responsive Politics, who provided us with the group disclosure classifications. We also thank our student research assistants at all three institutions for their tireless work, and we thank the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and Wesleyan University for their financial support of the project.
References
Brooks, Deborah Jordan, and Michael Murov. 2012. “Assessing Accountability in a Post-Citizens United Era: The Effects of Attack Ad Sponsorship by Unknown Independent Groups.” American Politics Research 40 (3): 383–418.10.1177/1532673X11414791Search in Google Scholar
Dowling, Conor M., and Amber Wichowsky. Accepted for Publication. “Attacks without Consequence? Candidates, Parties, Groups, and the Changing Face of Negative Advertising.” American Journal of Political Science.Search in Google Scholar
Goldmacher, Shane. 2014. “The Actual Intention Behind That Awkward Mitch McConnell Video.” National Journal, March 12.Search in Google Scholar
Issenberg, Sasha. 2012. The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns. Random House, New York: Crown Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Tyler, Johanna Dunaway, and Christopher R. Weber. 2011. “Consider the Source: Variations in the Effects of Negative Campaign Messages.” Journal of Integrated Social Sciences 2 (1): 98–127.Search in Google Scholar
Klimas, Jacqueline. 2014. “Online Campaign Ads May Prove Decisive in Midterm Elections.” The Washington Times, September 24.Search in Google Scholar
Kucinich, Jackie. 2014. “For Planned Parenthood Votes and Americans for Prosperity in N.C., It’s All about the Ground Game.” The Washington Post, October 29.Search in Google Scholar
Ridout, Travis N., Michael M. Franz, and Erika Franklin Fowler. Accepted for Publication. “Sponsorship, Disclosure and Donors: Limiting the Impact of Outside Group Ads.” Political Research Quarterly.Search in Google Scholar
Rucker, Philip, Robert Costa, and Matea Gold. 2014. “Unlike Previous Midterm Election Years, No Dominant Theme Has Emerged for 2014.” The Washington Post, August 9.Search in Google Scholar
Weber, Christopher, Johanna Dunaway, and Tyler Johnson. 2012. “It’s All in the Name: Source Cue Ambiguity and the Persuasive Appeal of Campaign Ads.” Political Behavior 34 (3): 561–584.10.1007/s11109-011-9172-ySearch in Google Scholar
©2014 by De Gruyter
