Only 5 more days till Election Day 2006!
Today we're focusing our attention on nothing other than the political ads and the costs of this campagining season.
An article on USAToday.com said that campaign spending is up 15% since 2004.
The non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics predicts that, by the end of the year, candidates, parties and outside groups will have raised $2.6 billion for the Nov. 7 elections, 18% more than in 2002.
Federal Election Commission figures show that as of Sept. 30 congressional candidates alone had raised $1.18 billion, up almost 15% from $1.03 billion in 2004.
Compare these amounts to international political races..
The FEC figure is more than 15 times what the five major German parties spent on parliamentary elections last year and more than six times what it cost Mexican taxpayers this year to elect not just the legislature but also the president.
But it's all about money...
Republicans and Democrats, which raise almost all those funds, see good in the high-cost U.S. system: Money enables candidates to communicate with voters and parties to organize efforts to get out the vote. They worry when they see unfair advantage for the other side.
Even many academics and non-partisan watchdog groups say the large sums spent on U.S. elections are not a problem in themselves. They say the system largely addresses the real concerns — protecting free speech and preventing or punishing corruption — though it does less well at opening competition for office to a wide range of people.
----
And, of course, candidates are buying commercial time with the money they raise. Uhh... yeah that's not rocket science to figure out.
So far, political parties have exposed voters to nearly $160 million in campagin ads attacking congressional candidates. And only $17 million of that $160 million has been used painting a positive image. That's nearly $1 of nice for every $10 of nasty.
In 2004, the parties spent about $6 on ads in favor of congressional candidates for every $5 spent opposing candidates.
At this point, Republicans have spent $87.5 million to oppose candidates and Democrats have spent $72.6 million. But the edge on negativity, according to independent analyses of the ads, goes to the Republican Party.
But do negative ads work?
Strategists and political ad analysts generally agree that negative ads work because negative opinions linger with voters longer than positive opinions.
"But it works only in the narrow sense," Ray Seidelman said. "In the long run what it does is create a tremendous amount of distrust in the process."
You can be the judge over at MSNBC.com. Vote on the funniest ads, dumbest ad, and nastiest ad from this election year.
Over at CBSNews.com.. watch some of the most hard-hitting attack ads from the campaign.
