Cox writes: "This yet-to-be-named, somewhat-regular look at new political ads began with the premise that this election cycle, post Citizens United, promises to be one of the ugliest yet. The idea was to look at the worst of the worst attack ads."



Not just a blimp on the horizon: A Greenpeace ad attacking rightwing industrialists and Super-PAC funders David and Charles Koch. (photo: Gus Ruelas/Greenpeace)

Attack Ads of the Giant Billionaires

By Ana Marie Cox, Guardian UK

The new trope in the 2012 election's negative campaigning is to criticise the other side's shadowy big donors. Plenty of material.

his yet-to-be-named, somewhat-regular look at new political ads began with the premise that this election cycle, post Citizens United, promises to be one of the ugliest yet. The idea was to look at the worst of the worst attack ads. Left unspoken was my assumption that there was a genre of ads that would not require examination.

As we get into the general election season, and politicians can dispense even a dash of leavening intra-party politeness, I wonder if this cycle will see a statistically significant portion of ads that aren't attacks. There are clips that are the equivalent of authorized biographies. There are spots that focus on the solutions to an issue. Or at least, I think there are – please let me know if you find one.

But for the most part, we're stuck in the mud. (Shall we call this series "Stuck in the Mud"? I will consult with the editor.)

Political scientists are divided about the effectiveness of negative ads. Conventional wisdom used to be that voters were turned off by negative campaigning (primarily because they perceive it as dishonest). Then, pundits pointed out that analytic studies of voter attitudes didn't matter as much as who wins – and in recent years, negative campaigns proved to be winning campaigns.

So, maybe, voters only tell pollsters they dislike attack ads, but the ads are effective, nonetheless. One academic researcher has gone so far as to argue that attack ads are a positive contribution to the process, as they are more likely to raise relevant issues (rather than, I suppose, speak in general terms about a candidate's awesomeness).

The fraught relationship between negative campaigning and those that campaign has a more lengthy history than most people realize (the race between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams was a Mobius strip of attack and regret), and it produces ads that fall into a tautological cul-de-sac: attack ads that attack ads. The Obama campaign has been unprecendently pro-active in this arena … (see here, here, and here). Though, perhaps, that's understandable. There were some unprecedented aspects to Obama.

We're in uncharted territory again this cycle with the deregulation of independent expenditures (that phrase probably deserves scare quotes, at least around the word "independent") allowing individual candidates to escape the boomerang of negativity that used to make attack ads risky. We are also kidding ourselves if we think that Super Pacs exist for any other reason besides funding attack ads (and attack mailings and attack spokespeople and, just maybe, attack dogs).

How do you defend against such an attack? Well, we have a new stop in that circular logic: an attack ad that attacks independent attack ads. Ladies and gentleman, allow me to introduce you to the new villain of the 2012 race: the Shadowy Billionaires (would be a great band name).

Thus far, Obama and Democratic incumbent Senator Claire McCaskill have put up ads that directly engage with the Shadowy Billionaires (see here and here). In the wake of Occupy Wall Street and lasting public bitterness about income inequality, it would seem that the only the Democratic party is well poised to use these anonymous antagonists.

We'll see. I suspect that the GOP will point out that the Democrats are stuffing some strawmen with dollars, as well. Republicans will warn us about the Celebrity Billionaires, the We-can't-call-them-gay Billionaires, the New York Elite Billionaires.

And here's the thing: all those guys exist. They do have names and agendas we don't know and they all will trade on the connections they make in donating to Super Pacs. But their emergence as the protagonists of the fall, ironically, could be the most straightforward thing about this entire campaign: it is a race of billionaires v billionaires, and they're all ready to attack us.