Where there are free elections, free speech, and lax libel laws, candidates
running for office are easily tempted to vilify their opponents.
Probably the worst mudslinging in U.S. history occurred in 1884 when
Democrat Grover Cleveland and Republican James Blaine vied for the
presidency. The Republicans denounced Cleveland for having fathered
a child out of wedlock. "Ma, Ma, where's my Pa?” they joked, “Gone
to the White House! Ha Ha Ha!"
The Democrats in turn exploited Blaine’s allegedly corrupt dealings
during his tenure as speaker of the House. When Republicans called
Democrats the party of “rum, Romanism, and rebellion,” however,
New York’s Catholic voters demonstrated their resentment by putting
Cleveland over the top.
In 1990 Republican candidate George Herbert Walker Bush benefited from an independent
ad playing on the alleged coddling of prison inmates. It showed a black rapist,
Willie Horton, furloughed from prison under a program favored by Bush’s
opponent, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis.
This year, Americans will see “probably a more negative campaign than any
in recent memory.” This prediction comes from researcher John Geer of Vanderbilt
University who wrote a book on negative advertising. Last Sunday, the Washington
Post reported that the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) “plans
to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what
officials described as negative ads.” NRCC chairman Thomas Reynolds explained
that “opposition research is the key to defining untested opponents.”
Why would a Republican candidate want to talk about his party’s backing
of the President’s failed policies in the Middle East? “When you
run in an adverse political environment,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) commented, “you
try to localize and personalize the race as much as you can.” Republican
lobbyist Matt Keelen recommends negative advertising preferably against inexperienced
opponents: “It will take one or two punches to fold them up like a cheap
suit.”
In Illinois, gubernatorial elections in particular have often been muddied by
charges and countercharges ranging from dubious to outrageous. This year’s
contest appears to be no exception.
In April, Governor Rod Blagojevich took the offensive against challenger Judy
Topinka with several charges bordering on ridicule, each ending with the tag
line “What’s she been thinking?” On his web site “Topinka
Watch.com,” the governor made one unspecific allegation after another: “Donations
keep flowing from banks to Topinka.” “Topinka says one thing and
does another on ethanol.” “Topinka’s budget numbers don’t
add up.” “Topinka flip flopping on gambling.”
At first, she joked that her “opponent’s ads are so negative, even
my dogs run away.” After having been slapped around by the governor for
four months, she decided to respond with her own ads, cleverly using the line” “I’m
Judy Topinka, and I’ve been thinking.”
Just as vague as Blagojevich, however, she accuses him of presiding over a state
with “the biggest deficit of any state,” declining family incomes,
and inadequate education funding. Both candidates are citing numbers most voters
have no way of verifying. The governor claims that the raise Topinka wants to
give state employees would cost taxpayers $33 million while she insists that
the annual $6 million health care program he promises Illinois veterans is too
expensive.
The governor’s camp tries to tie Topinka to the corruption of which ex-governor
George Ryan was recently convicted. More personal charges against Blagojevich
may be in the offing if the public finds out what, if any, corruption charges
federal attorney Fitzgerald’s investigations might bring against him.
In the meantime, Topinka is being accused of having given a no-bid lease “to
a Springfield insider who has donated more than $40,000 to her campaign.” The
governor is being asked to explain why he accepted a $1,500 birthday gift for
his daughter within days of giving the donor’s wife a $45000 state job
in Whiteside County, 130 miles from her residence in Chicago.
Apparently, Mr. Blagojevich has good reason for his repeated promise that “Stopping
public corruption and improving ethical standards will be ongoing priorities
for my administration.”