tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/political-ads-17002/articlesPolitical ads – The Conversation2024-03-14T05:54:48Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2257742024-03-14T05:54:48Z2024-03-14T05:54:48ZThe Jacqui Lambie Network is the latest victim of ‘cybersquatting’. It’s the tip of the iceberg of negative political ads online<p>Firebrand senator Jacqui Lambie is furious. Amid the Tasmanian election campaign (in which she’s running candidates), her party, the Jacqui Lambie Network, has fallen victim to one of the many pitfalls in the world of online political advertising.</p>
<p>Her party’s website is lambienetwork.com.au. You might understand her anger, then, after <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-14/jacqui-lambie-slams-liberals-over-website/103581992">finding out</a> the Tasmanian Liberal party created a website to campaign against her, called lambienetwork.com. It’s a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it difference.</p>
<p>This is a textbook example of what’s known as cybersquatting. It’s when internet domain names that are similar to existing trademarked material or the names of people or organisations are bought up by competitors to use against the original. In fact, the major parties have purchased <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2022/04/08/crikeys-australian-political-party-domain-register/">a heap</a> of domain names.</p>
<p>As political parties desperately battle for voters’ attention in a world full of distractions and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02-08/trust-slump-as-division-rules/101939406">dwindling trust in government</a>, cybersquatting is one of many online tools in the toolkit. But the toolkit is full of blunt instruments that may only be effective on a minority of people. The true damage is being done to the majority, who have less and less faith in politics and its institutions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/all-governments-are-guilty-of-running-political-ads-on-the-public-purse-heres-how-to-stop-it-191766">All governments are guilty of running political ads on the public purse. Here's how to stop it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A crowded, manufactured landscape</h2>
<p>In commercial marketing, there’s a focus on long-term brand building. In political marketing, there’s just one goal: winning.</p>
<p>With such high pressure, and little time to hit objectives, parties and candidates use highly emotive messaging and narratives to drive rapid attention and engagement, and hopefully convince people to vote for them.</p>
<p>With markets splintered into ever-smaller segments, based at times on very specific needs, <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-videos-targeted-texts-and-clive-palmer-memes-how-digital-advertising-is-shaping-this-election-campaign-115629">social media</a> has helped move voters quickly and developed narratives around leaders’ personal brands. </p>
<p>Instagram was used successfully by former prime minister Scott Morrison with <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/language/punjabi/en/article/prime-minister-scott-morrison-makes-scomosas-says-would-have-liked-to-share-them-with-narendra-modi/fzx9zmmkg">his Scomosas</a> and attempt at Bunnings DIY. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1266952463464071171"}"></div></p>
<p>His successor, Anthony Albanese, has replicated that strategy, letting us get a glimpse of who he really is, even having a <a href="https://twitter.com/TotoAlbanese?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1529271741683339264%7Ctwgr%5E2db6b443e67a568315e7a33f81e6cd31f916b63d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.perthnow.com.au%2Fpolitics%2Fanthony-albanese%2Fanthony-albaneses-dog-toto-gains-huge-following-on-twitter-c-6934822">Twitter/X account for his dog Toto</a>. This is aimed at developing resonance and building up likeability for his brand. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1531395641582047232"}"></div></p>
<p>Of course, as any royal watcher or user of social media can tell you, <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-kate-middletons-photo-was-doctored-but-so-are-a-lot-of-images-we-see-today-225553">curated images are exactly that</a>: manufactured, for us. So we are trusting this method less and less. This will only get worse the longer voters are exposed to it.</p>
<p>Stories such as that in the 2022 federal election of Labor-aligned groups <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-08/aec-investigating-union-tiktok-accounts-ahead-of-election/100969896">considering paying influencers</a> to post friendly content, doesn’t help either. </p>
<p>As a result, when we see content posted by an influencer, we’re now more likely to be sceptical. Do they really like this product, or are they just being paid to say they do?</p>
<h2>‘Angertainment’ is highly effective</h2>
<p>So it’s back to square one. Enter negativity, or “angertainment”.</p>
<p>Reality shows are full of it. One example is <a href="https://www.girlmuseum.org/media-analysis-the-villain-edit/#:%7E:text=When%20a%20participant%20is%20edited%20in%20a%20way,footage%20of%20someone%20is%20presented%20to%20the%20audience.">the villain edit</a>, where certain contestants are framed to be the antagonist for the sake of drama. There’s also the cued music to make us feel this is the “season-defining moment”. </p>
<p>They do this for the same reasons politicians have done it for decades. It works. It gets our attention. We get engaged. We change our vote. Ratings of these shows don’t lie. </p>
<p>In the past, this was called “wedge politics”, as it wedged one group of voters against others. A party or candidate could then become that group’s champion, and hello election victory. Simple narrative construction. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/we-tracked-election-ad-spending-for-4-000-facebook-pages-heres-what-theyre-posting-about-and-why-cybersecurity-is-the-bigger-concern-182286">We tracked election ad spending for 4,000 Facebook pages. Here's what they're posting about – and why cybersecurity is the bigger concern</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This was easy when competition for our attention was less fierce. John Howard’s 2001 election-opening “<a href="https://theconversation.com/issues-that-swung-elections-tampa-and-the-national-security-election-of-2001-115143">we decide</a>” statement about immigration was pure wedge politics. </p>
<p>The aim is still the same now, but in a competitive environment for our attention and retention, modern methods have allowed for new ways to reach the average voter. Having not seen them before, people are <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-scare-campaigns-like-mediscare-work-even-if-voters-hate-them-62279">more susceptible to believing</a> them. </p>
<p>Clive Palmer has used <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/08/clive-palmer-and-craig-kelly-using-spam-text-messages-to-capture-rightwing-vote-ahead-of-election-expert-says">spam text messages</a> over the years to grab some attention, although it hasn’t necessarily translated into electoral success.</p>
<p>A more inventive use of the internet to campaign was Pauline Hanson’s <a href="https://www.onenation.org.au/please-explain">cartoon series</a>. The first three episodes racked up <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/pauline-hanson-as-a-superhero-these-cartoons-could-be-the-future-20211123-p59b9u.html">750,000 views</a> in two weeks on YouTube. </p>
<p>Both Labor and Liberal have had a strong presence on Snapchat. In 2016, the Liberals were among the first to <a href="https://www.marketingmag.com.au/social-digital/liberal-party-makes-world-history-first-sponsored-snapchat-lens-political-advertising/">make a filter</a> on the app. Labor was the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/technology/how-are-politicians-using-social-media-to-campaign-20220418-p5ae6q.html">only major party</a> to use it during the 2022 federal election campaign.</p>
<p>These are all new ways of communicating a party’s key messages, including scare or smear campaigns. </p>
<p>Think “Mediscare”, so well done by Labor in 2016 via SMS, and then the revenge sequel of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/08/it-felt-like-a-big-tide-how-the-death-tax-lie-infected-australias-election-campaign">death taxes</a> in 2019 by the Coalition. They used Facebook groups very well. </p>
<p>Angertainment is now seen as being more likely to get the message across, and thereby victory, than anything else. </p>
<p>A significant aspect of these campaigns was disinformation, including the misrepresentation or impersonation of candidates. Senator David Pocock was a key target in the ACT in 2022, but <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-04-27/david-pocock-lodges-complaint-over-advance-australia-corflutes/101016990">successfully ran a challenge</a> through the Australian Electoral Commission. </p>
<p>But this is 2024, and two years is an aeon in social media. The Jacqui Lambie Network (JLN) website trick we saw this week is an old-school one. Unlike some of the other strategies, it’s not effective. It is, however, childish. </p>
<p>So why bother? The attacking party would be obvious to most, if not by the authorised name as required by electoral laws. This dilutes the effect and it likely reinforces the reasons to vote for the JLN. </p>
<p>But political parties do it to capitalise on those who don’t realise they’re receiving a message in bad faith. Even if it’s a minority, it’s someone. In a tight political climate, it might be enough to tip the scales in their favour.</p>
<p>The collateral damage, of course, is the spread of misinformation and public disillusionment with politics and elections.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/few-restrictions-no-spending-limit-and-almost-no-oversight-welcome-to-political-advertising-in-australia-181248">Few restrictions, no spending limit, and almost no oversight: welcome to political advertising in Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Can we stop this?</h2>
<p>We can, easily. </p>
<p>Cybersquatting is in a grey area legally. There are gaps in the relevant legislation that make it very difficult for those affected to get websites taken down. They’re often managed by international organisations with laborious processes.</p>
<p>But the government can ban cyber hijacking or squatting of politicians or parties’ web addresses or social channels. It can restrict negative advertising, and bring in green ticks to verify truthful advertising. </p>
<p>Government can also ensure social media companies take more responsibility for content, and tolerate fewer excuses for poor behaviour. This isn’t restricting freedom of speech, only restricting disinformation. Some independents <a href="https://mumbrella.com.au/new-bill-tabled-to-bring-much-needed-accountability-to-political-advertising-806487">have already</a> introduced bills in parliament on this issue.</p>
<p>If it’s so easy, why hasn’t it been done? Because that requires political support. Considering politicians are the ones who benefit most from the existing framework, we don’t need a negative ad to tell us how unlikely they are to do anything about it anytime soon.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225774/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Hughes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>As political parties desperately battle for voters’ attention, cybersquatting is one of many online tools in the toolkit. It’s only effective at further diminishing trust in government.Andrew Hughes, Lecturer, Research School of Management, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2107762023-08-04T12:28:28Z2023-08-04T12:28:28ZTrump’s political action committee wants a $60 million refund on paying his legal fees – 3 key things to know about PACs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540535/original/file-20230801-21-mmzd9z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">One of Donald Trump's PACs has nearly dried up its resources by paying his legal fees.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/campaign-buttons-on-top-of-hundred-dollar-bills-royalty-free-image/486249544?phrase=Super+PAC&adppopup=true">iStock/Getty Images Plus </a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Save America, one of former President Donald Trump’s political organizations, is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/29/us/trump-pac-legal-fees.html">seeking a US$60 million refund</a> from Make America Great Again, Inc., another Trump political organization that is less strictly regulated by federal rules.</em> </p>
<p><em>Save America has paid Trump’s legal fees connected to multiple investigations into alleged criminal activities and is now down to less than $4 million in its account, The New York Times reported on July 31, 2023. It <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/31/us/politics/trump-pac-filing.html">started 2022 with $105 million</a> in the bank.</em></p>
<p><em>Trump’s use of political action committees, often known as PACs, to pay his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/07/29/trump-lawyers-pac-deoliveira-loyal/">mounting legal fees</a> has raised questions about these organizations and how they spend money.</em> </p>
<p><em>First, what’s a PAC, anyway?</em></p>
<p><em>We <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/31/us/politics/trump-pac-filing.html">asked Richard Briffault,</a> a scholar of campaign finance law, to explain what is behind PACs and whether using them to pay for personal legal expenses is permitted. Here are three key points to understand:</em></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="People walk through Times Square, in front of a large poster that says 'Super Trump' and shows Trump's face on a Superman body, flying." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540536/original/file-20230801-17-os5s85.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People walk past a Times Square digital billboard created by a pro-Trump super PAC in 2016.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/people-walk-at-the-corner-of-47th-street-and-7th-avenue-as-news-photo/605881900?adppopup=true">Drew Angerer/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>1. PACs are not all made equal</h2>
<p>PACs are organizations that raise and spend money on federal elections. A PAC may contribute money to a candidate or political party, or spend independently to promote or attack a candidate or party. </p>
<p>Corporations, labor unions and other ideological groups <a href="https://issueone.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Leadership-PACs-Inc.pdf">originally set up PACs</a> many decades ago as a way to participate in federal elections. Most PACs today are either connected to a sponsor organization or <a href="https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-of-21-month-campaign-activity-of-the-2021-2022-election-cycle/">have a particular issue agenda</a>. These PACs typically donate to or spend money in support of multiple candidates. </p>
<p>Some PACs, however, are directly created by candidates or their supporters.</p>
<p>Trump’s situation involves two particular kinds of PACs: a leadership PAC <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/save-america/C00762591/summary/2022">named Save America</a> and a super PAC named <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/make-america-great-again-inc/C00825851/summary/2022">Make America Great Again, Inc.</a> </p>
<p>Leadership PACs, which date <a href="https://issueone.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Leadership-PACs-Inc.pdf">back to the late 1970s</a>, are created by candidates or officeholders to support other candidates for federal office, but not the <a href="https://www.fec.gov/campaign-finance-data/leadership-pacs-and-sponsors-description/">candidate’s own campaign</a>. They allow candidates to help fellow party members, strengthen their party’s position and boost their own efforts to win leadership positions. </p>
<p>A super PAC, meanwhile, is a PAC that does not contribute to candidates directly at all, but instead spends money independently to <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/filing-pac-reports/registering-super-pac/">promote or oppose candidates</a>. Like other PACS, a super PAC can pay for advertising, polling, opposition research and get-out-the-vote efforts. But the super PAC cannot coordinate its activities with the candidate it is supporting.</p>
<p>Super PACs emerged in 2010 following a controversial <a href="https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/speechnoworg-v-fec/">court of appeals decision</a>. The ruling found that if a PAC does not directly contribute to or coordinate with a candidate, the ordinary limits on money contributions to PACs do not apply. </p>
<p>Federal law caps individual donations to most PACs, including leadership PACs, <a href="https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/contribution_limits_chart_2023-2024.pdf">at $5,000 per year</a>.</p>
<p>The lack of caps on donations to super PACs is what merits the modifier “super.”</p>
<p>The case that gave rise to super PACs involved an independent organization not connected to any campaign or candidate. But some super PACs, <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-hates-lobbyistsexcept-the-ones-running-his-super-pac">including Trump’s,</a> are also created by people closely associated with a candidate and devote their spending entirely to the support of that candidate. </p>
<p>Because contribution limits do not apply to super PACs, they have become an essential component of <a href="https://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Briffault_MLR.pdf">election campaigns</a> over the last 13 years.</p>
<h2>2. PACs can sometimes pay legal fees</h2>
<p>Campaign money is supposed to be used for campaign purposes and not for what election law refers to as <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/">“personal use,”</a> such as a political candidate’s home mortgage. </p>
<p>It is illegal to use campaign money to <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/">pay for personal expenses</a> that would have occurred whether or not the candidate was running for office. </p>
<p>The Federal Election Commission <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/">has ruled that campaign</a> funds can be used to pay a candidate’s legal fees if an investigation relates directly to the election or the candidate’s time in political office. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man looks at a wall covered in photos and text, including one plaque that says 'welcome to the big, beautiful Trump museum.'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/540537/original/file-20230801-19-svyedc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Democratic super PAC, American Bridge, created a Trump museum in Cleveland, showcasing parts of the former president’s life he would rather keep quiet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/man-visits-exhibits-at-a-so-called-trump-museum-in-news-photo/577714990?adppopup=true">William Edwards/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>3. Trump’s case enters murky territory</h2>
<p>The Federal Election Commission ruling means that election funding laws could allow Trump to use money from his PAC to pay for legal fees in connection with the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-new-york-hush-money-f8ad2bd8845d1295db439719b4987e54">New York hush money</a> case – which relates to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign – as well as the federal and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/31/us/trump-georgia-prosecutor-election.html">Georgia investigations</a> of Trump’s role in challenging the results of the 2020 election. </p>
<p>But money raised for a campaign could probably not cover the Department of Justice’s <a href="https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190619704/trump-charged-with-additional-count-in-mar-a-lago-documents-case">Mar-a-Lago documents case</a>, which does not involve either Trump’s campaign or his time in office. </p>
<p>The FEC has, in some cases, <a href="https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/making-disbursements/personal-use/">also determined that a politician</a> may use campaign funds to pay for up to 50% of legal expenses that do not relate directly to allegations arising from campaign or officeholder activity.</p>
<p>This is true if the politician is required to provide substantive responses to the media while a candidate, regarding alleged illegal activity. So, campaign money might be used in the Mar-a-Lago case.</p>
<p>What’s unclear – and possibly unlawful – is whether Trump’s leadership PAC, Save America, can pay for Trump’s legal expenses. </p>
<p>This is because leadership PACs are supposed to spend money on other political candidates, not the candidate who controls the leadership PAC. And in this case, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Save_America">Save America is controlled by Trump</a>. </p>
<p>It’s also not clear whether the money transfers from the super PAC Make America Great Again, Inc, to Save America <a href="https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/Trump%20Save%20America%20PAC%20Complaint%20%28Final%29.pdf">are consistent with the legal requirement</a> that super PACs operate independently of a candidate’s campaign. </p>
<p>The request for refunds only underscores that concern.</p>
<p>The Federal Election Commission monitors any PAC-related legal issues or violations of election law. But given that the commission is facing <a href="https://shpr.legislature.ca.gov/sites/shpr.legislature.ca.gov/files/Ravel%20-%20FEC%20Dysfunction.pdf">“dysfunction and deadlock,”</a> as a former FEC chair has said, there is unlikely to be clarification or enforcement anytime soon.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210776/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Briffault does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There are different kinds of PACs, but it is not clear if Trump’s use of them to pay his large legal fees violates election or campaign finance laws.Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1903982022-09-22T15:41:00Z2022-09-22T15:41:00ZName-calling in politics grabs headlines, but voters don’t like it – and it could backfire in the 2022 midterm elections<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485981/original/file-20220921-7502-ydx3fm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A voter and her child cast a ballot during the midterm primary elections in Virginia in June 2022. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/voter-casts-her-ballot-with-her-child-at-a-polling-station-at-rose-picture-id1404219726">Alex Wong/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Spending on political advertising is setting records in the midterm elections. But evidence shows that negative messages might discourage voters from casting ballots altogether. </p>
<p>As the 2022 midterms get closer, political attacks in campaign advertisements are on the rise. </p>
<p>In November, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republicans-gosar-trump-ocasio-cortez/2021/11/08/ead37b36-40ca-11ec-9ea7-3eb2406a2e24_story.html">Rep. Paul Gosar shared an anime cartoon video</a> showing him physically attacking Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat, and President Joe Biden. </p>
<p>That same month, Rep. Ilhan Omar called her Republican colleague Rep. Lauren Boebert <a href="https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1464037767005057024">a buffoon and a bigot</a> on Twitter. Even the official White House Twitter account has gotten in on the politically divisive action, making <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/us/white-house-twitter-ppp-loans.html">recent headlines</a> when it snapped back in August 2022 at several Republican members of Congress who criticized the <a href="https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/covid-19-relief-options/paycheck-protection-program">Paycheck Protection Program</a> – after they themselves had their loans forgiven. </p>
<p>Uncivil messages by politicians have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221083811">become more and more common</a> in the last decade. Political attacks are now a regular occurrence in an increasingly polarized political environment, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/718979">encouraging voters to get mad and plan to vote</a> ahead of Election Day in November. </p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean these kinds of advertisements and personal attacks actually work. </p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=vFCS00oAAAAJ&hl=en">I study political marketing</a> and, as a former campaign manager and political consultant, have seen politicians use uncivil strategies firsthand with the hopes of getting themselves elected. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-021-09246-x">My research</a> on political advertising suggests that highly polarized communications could be losing their persuasive power and can even backfire in the upcoming midterms, hurting a candidate’s chances.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1457865685464276997"}"></div></p>
<h2>The impacts of political attack ads</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2020.1260">My research</a> shows that political ads and language do indeed put people in a negative mood. Even simply asking voters to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9431-7">think about politics</a> is enough to get them angry. This negativity is amplified if an ad <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/523287">specifically attacks</a> an opposing candidate. </p>
<p>There is also evidence that this anger carries over to voting behavior. Data from U.S. elections from 2000 to 2012 shows that negative political TV commercials make people less likely to vote for the attacked politician, but also make <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2017.1079">people less</a> likely to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4347">vote in general</a>.</p>
<p>Politicians tend to use <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000696">less negative, polarizing advertising</a> on social media compared to their advertising on television, however. This might be because social media attracts a smaller, more targeted audience, and perhaps candidates fear that these kinds of tactics could demobilize supporters.</p>
<h2>The rise of polarization</h2>
<p>There are a few factors that help explain why political campaigns and attacks on opponents have become more toxic in recent years.</p>
<p>First off, voters are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/718979">more emotional and angrier</a> than ever before. This emotion about politics has been linked to the <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/249098/americans-stress-worry-anger-intensified-2018.aspx">normalcy of anger in our day-to-day lives</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/718979">increased political competition</a> – for example, close presidential elections. </p>
<p>Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. are also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/718979">interacting less and less</a>. This social polarization comes as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038">political identity is more important to voters</a> than ever before. Being a Democrat or a Republican is a core part of who the voter is and shapes both their political decisions – like whom they vote for – as well as their nonpolitical ones, like whom they hang out with. </p>
<p>Given these factors, conversations about politics are increasingly happening among people who already agree on political issues.</p>
<p>Politicians like former President <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/01/19/upshot/trump-complete-insult-list.html">Donald Trump</a> and others seem to be leveraging the fact that they are preaching to the choir, so to speak, and are using <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221083811">more and more polarized language</a> to attack the other side. </p>
<p>Whether language is polarized or not is a subjective question, but my research and the work of others has focused on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2020.1260">how negative a political message is</a> and <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11129-021-09246-x">how extreme the message is</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485976/original/file-20220921-15425-ddwz1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Women and men stand together with protest signs that say 'Make America Great Again' and 'Lock her up' at a Trump rally." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485976/original/file-20220921-15425-ddwz1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485976/original/file-20220921-15425-ddwz1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485976/original/file-20220921-15425-ddwz1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485976/original/file-20220921-15425-ddwz1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485976/original/file-20220921-15425-ddwz1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485976/original/file-20220921-15425-ddwz1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485976/original/file-20220921-15425-ddwz1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Donald Trump and his supporters were known during the 2016 campaign for chanting ‘Lock her up!’ in reference to Hillary Clinton.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/view-of-supporters-with-signs-as-they-attend-donald-trumps-campaign-picture-id684958638">David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The declining power of polarized messaging</h2>
<p>There is some evidence that voters may be getting tired of negative political communications flooding their screens. </p>
<p>Using data from the 2016 U.S. presidential election, my collaborators and I found that political ad messages that are more polarized <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-021-09246-x">hurt candidates in the polls and lead voters to talk less about the candidate</a>. </p>
<p>Specifically, we find that voters prefer more centrist and more consistent messaging in political ads, at least in the contexts of recent presidential elections. This research used text analysis methods, which allowed us to score each ad for how polarized the messaging was as well as how consistent the messaging was for the candidate. </p>
<p>Polarized messages particularly hurt a candidate’s election chances if they are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-021-09246-x">off-brand for the candidate</a> – that is, for politicians who are typically moderate, and then try to go extreme.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485971/original/file-20220921-18-o1ccv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A white man in a red hat appears to be arguing with a young black man in a crowded scene that looks like a protest." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485971/original/file-20220921-18-o1ccv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/485971/original/file-20220921-18-o1ccv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485971/original/file-20220921-18-o1ccv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485971/original/file-20220921-18-o1ccv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485971/original/file-20220921-18-o1ccv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485971/original/file-20220921-18-o1ccv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/485971/original/file-20220921-18-o1ccv9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A protester and a supporter of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh argue before his confirmation in 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/protester-and-a-supporter-of-us-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-picture-id1045620576">Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Looking ahead to the 2022 midterms</h2>
<p>There’s a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-at-stake-2022-midterm-elections/">lot at stake</a> in the upcoming midterm elections in November 2022, as every House seat and about one-third of the Senate seats are up for grabs. A record-setting <a href="https://adimpact.com/2022-political-spending-projections/">US$8.9 billion</a> in political ad spending is expected for this midterm election season. </p>
<p>If the dominant tone of this messaging is toxic, political campaigns run the risk of disengaging more and more voters. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-021-09246-x">My research</a> shows that there are emerging consequences of polarized communications that can hurt candidates in the polls. These insights may encourage political campaigns to test different ad strategies this midterm, perhaps curbing the negativity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190398/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beth L. Fossen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A record amount is being spent on political advertising in the midterm elections. But evidence shows that negative ads might work counteractively, discouraging voters from casting ballots altogether.Beth L. Fossen, Assistant Professor of Marketing Kelley School of Business, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1856712022-07-11T12:29:22Z2022-07-11T12:29:22ZMilitant white identity politics on full display in GOP political ads featuring high-powered weapons<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473081/original/file-20220707-9550-qqbtp0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=547%2C159%2C2328%2C1638&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Eric Greitens poses with a high-powered rifle and commandos in a political ad. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZZ2Y6fAq8o">Eric Greitens</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Republican Eric Greitens, a candidate for Missouri’s open U.S. Senate seat, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/06/20/1106228594/a-missouri-senate-candidate-holds-a-shotgun-and-calls-for-rino-hunting-in-a-new-">shocked</a> viewers with a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZZ2Y6fAq8o">new online political ad</a> in June 2022 that encouraged his supporters to go “RINO hunting.”</p>
<p>Appearing with a shotgun and a smirk, Greitens leads the hunt for RINOs, shorthand for the derisive “Republicans In Name Only.” Along with armed soldiers, Greitens is storming a house under the cover of a smoke grenade.</p>
<p>“Join the MAGA crew,” Greitens says in the video. “Get a RINO hunting permit. There’s no bagging limit, no tagging limit and it doesn’t expire until we save our country.” </p>
<p>The ad comes from from a candidate who has repeatedly found himself in controversy, having resigned as Missouri’s governor amid <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/missouri-gov-eric-greitens-resigns-after-graphic-sexual-allegations-627630/">accusations of sexual assault</a> and allegations of <a href="https://theconversation.com/missouris-dark-money-scandal-explained-90427">improper campaign financing</a> that sparked an 18-month investigation that eventually cleared him of any legal wrongdoing. </p>
<p>The political ad was also launched – and quickly <a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article262699527.html">removed – from Facebook and flagged by Twitter</a> at a time when the nation is still coming to terms with the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56004916">insurrection at the U.S. Capitol</a> and reeling from mass shootings in <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/06/02/1102612939/tulsa-gunmans-doctor-among-those-killed-in-the-mass-shooting">Tulsa, Oklahoma</a>, <a href="https://www.texastribune.org/series/uvalde-texas-school-shooting/">Uvalde, Texas</a>, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/02/us/buffalo-mass-shooting-suspect-indictment/index.html">Buffalo, New York</a> and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/us/highland-park-illinois-shooting-july-fourth-parade-friday/index.html">Highland Park, Illinois</a>. </p>
<p>The ad continues to circulate on YouTube via various news sources.</p>
<p>Greitens’s call to political arms is hardly new. </p>
<p>In his 2016 gubernatorial ads, Greitens appeared <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-VfFi6Z14Q">firing a Gatling-style machine gun</a> into the air and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf2Gai1uQYM">using an M4 rifle</a> to create an explosion in a field to demonstrate his resistance to the Obama administration. </p>
<p>What Greitens’ ad represents, <a href="https://uark.academia.edu/RyanNevilleShepard/CurriculumVitae">in our view</a>, is the evolution of the use of guns in political ads as a coded appeal for white voters.</p>
<p>While they might have been a bit more ambiguous in the past, candidates are increasingly making these appeals appear more militant in their culture war against ideas and politicians they oppose.</p>
<h2>Guns as a symbol of whiteness</h2>
<p><a href="https://comm.unl.edu/casey-kelly">As communication scholars</a>, we have studied the ways that <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00335630.2021.1903537">white</a> <a href="https://ohiostatepress.org/books/titles/9780814214329.html">masculinity</a> has influenced <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00335630.2019.1698756">contemporary conservative populism</a>. </p>
<p>We have also examined the ways that racial appeals to white voters have evolved under <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2017.1320809">the GOP’s Southern strategy</a>, the <a href="https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780190265960.001.0001/oso-9780190265960">long game</a> that conservatives have played since the 1960s to weaken the Democratic Party in the South by exploiting racial animus. </p>
<p>In some of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2020.1813902">our latest work</a>, we have examined the ways that guns have been used in campaign ads to represent white identity politics, or what political scientist <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uRyGDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR8&dq=white+identity+politics&ots=qKjsXBf51s&sig=vygjiZuXlY8Sf4HjC8D3WrrxjMs#v=onepage&q=white%20identity%20politics&f=false">Ashley Jardina has explained</a> as the way that white racial solidarity and fears of marginalization have manifested in a political movement. </p>
<p>Symbolically, guns in the U.S. have historically been linked to defending the interests of white people. </p>
<p>In her book “<a href="https://www.akpress.org/catalog/product/view/id/3332/s/loaded/category/6/">Loaded: A Disarming History of the Second Amendment</a>,” <a href="https://law.utexas.edu/humanrights/directory/roxanne-dunbar-ortiz/">historian Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz</a> documents how <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/">America’s Founding Fathers</a> originally conceived of the <a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-2/#:%7E:text=A%20well%20regulated%20Militia%2C%20being,Arms%2C%20shall%20not%20be%20infringed">Second Amendment</a> as protection for white frontier militias in their efforts to subdue and exterminate Indigenous people. The Second Amendment was also designed to safeguard Southern slave owners who feared revolts. </p>
<p>As a result, the right to bear arms was never imagined by the founders to be an individual liberty held by Indigenous people and people of color. </p>
<p>As illustrated in Richard Slotkin’s book “<a href="https://www.oupress.com/9780806130316/gunfighter-nation/">Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in Twentieth-Century America</a>,” the popular film and literary genre of the Western glamorized white, hypermasculine cowboys and gunslingers “civilizing” the wild frontier to make it safe for white homesteaders. </p>
<p>Drawing from this lore, contemporary gun culture romanticizes the “good guy with a gun” as the patriotic protector of the peace and a bulwark against government overreach. </p>
<p>Contemporary gun laws reflect a historic racial disparity concerning who is authorized and under what circumstances individuals are allowed to use lethal force.</p>
<p>For example, so-called “<a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/26/us/stand-your-ground-law-explainer/index.html">stand your ground” laws</a> have been used historically to justify the killing of Black men, most notably in the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts/index.html">Trayvon Martin case</a>.</p>
<p>Gun control advocates <a href="https://everytownresearch.org/report/stand-your-ground-laws-are-a-license-to-kill/">Everytown for Gun Safety</a> have found that homicides resulting from white shooters killing Black victims are “deemed justifiable five times more frequently than when the shooter is Black and the victim is white.” </p>
<h2>Militant white identity politics</h2>
<p>Featuring a gun in a political ad has become <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/31/republicans-guns-ads-posts/">an easy way to get attention</a>, but our research has found that its meaning has shifted in recent years. </p>
<p>In a 2010 race for Alabama agriculture commissioner, <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2010/06/02/127366687/dale-peterson-rides-off-sunset">Dale Peterson</a> was featured in <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0">an ad</a> holding a gun, wearing a cowboy hat and talking in a deep Southern drawl about the need to challenge the “thugs and criminals” in government. </p>
<p>His style proved entertaining.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A white man wearing a white cowboys has a rifle on his shoulder as he stands near a horse." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473094/original/file-20220707-18-oacgof.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/473094/original/file-20220707-18-oacgof.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473094/original/file-20220707-18-oacgof.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473094/original/file-20220707-18-oacgof.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473094/original/file-20220707-18-oacgof.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473094/original/file-20220707-18-oacgof.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/473094/original/file-20220707-18-oacgof.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this 2010 political ad, Dale Peterson of Alabama appeared with a rifle on his shoulder.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0">Dale Peterson</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Though Peterson placed third in his race, political analysts like Time magazine’s Dan Fletcher raved that he created <a href="https://newsfeed.time.com/2010/05/17/dale-peterson-and-the-best-campaign-ad-ever/">one of the best campaign ads ever</a>. </p>
<p>In the same year, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2010/06/ariz-republican-fires-guns-in-ad-039179">Arizona Republican Pam Gorman</a> ran for U.S. Congress.</p>
<p>She took the use of guns in political ads even further by appearing at a backyard range and firing a machine gun, pistol, AR-15 and a revolver <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqnjzONrPiA">in the same ad</a>. </p>
<p>Though she gained attention for her provocative tactics, Gorman eventually <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arizona-primary-results-ben-quayle-wins/">lost to Ben Quayle</a>, son of former Vice President Dan Quayle, in a 10-candidate primary. </p>
<p>Aside from the shock value, guns in ads became a symbol of opposition to the Obama administration. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A middle-aged white man sits in the back of a pickup truck with a stack of papers and a high-powered rifle." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472580/original/file-20220705-14-rqqcf3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472580/original/file-20220705-14-rqqcf3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472580/original/file-20220705-14-rqqcf3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472580/original/file-20220705-14-rqqcf3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472580/original/file-20220705-14-rqqcf3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472580/original/file-20220705-14-rqqcf3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472580/original/file-20220705-14-rqqcf3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this 2014 political ad, Alabama congressional candidate Will Brooke used a high-powered rifle to shoot holes in Obamacare legislation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I2z9cCC9zs">Will Brooke</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For instance, in 2014, U.S. congressional candidate <a href="https://www.al.com/spotnews/2014/03/in_video_district_6_candidate.html">Will Brooke of Alabama</a> ran an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I2z9cCC9zs">online ad</a> in a Republican primary showing him loading a copy of the Obamacare legislation into a truck, driving it into the woods and shooting it with a handgun, rifle and assault rifle. </p>
<p>Not done, the remains of the copy were then thrown into a wood chipper. Although Brooke lost the seven-way primary, <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/will-brooke-alabama-obamacare-105072">his ad received national attention</a>.</p>
<p>The call to defend a conservative way of life got increasingly bizarre – and became a common tactic for GOP candidates. </p>
<p>Well before Greitens, U.S. congressional candidate Kay Daly from North Carolina fired a shotgun at the end of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Br1GxdGJo">an ad</a> during her unsuccessful campaign in 2015 asking supporters to join her in hunting RINOs. </p>
<p>The ad attacked her primary opponent, incumbent Rep. Renee Elmers, a Republican from North Carolina, for funding Obamacare, “Planned Butcherhood” and protecting rights of “illegal alien child molesters.”</p>
<p>Before he drew the ire of Trump, Brian Kemp <a href="https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/kemp-first-runoff-jake-and-that-shotgun-make-comeback/bciUA9Lc5duNU5BnNEwePL/">climbed the polls</a> in Georgia’s race for governor in 2018 with an ad titled “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ABRz_epvic">Jake</a>” in which he interviewed his daughter’s boyfriend. </p>
<p>Holding a shotgun in his lap as he sat in a chair, Kemp portrayed himself as a conservative outsider ready to take a “chainsaw to government regulations” and demanding respect as his family’s patriarch.</p>
<p>The ads of the most recent cycle build on this development of the gun as a symbol of white resistance. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A white woman is wearing dark sunglasses and carrying a high-powered rifle." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472601/original/file-20220705-26-eb5rzo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472601/original/file-20220705-26-eb5rzo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472601/original/file-20220705-26-eb5rzo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472601/original/file-20220705-26-eb5rzo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472601/original/file-20220705-26-eb5rzo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472601/original/file-20220705-26-eb5rzo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472601/original/file-20220705-26-eb5rzo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=471&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In this 2022 political ad, Marjorie Taylor Greene is wearing dark sunglasses and carrying a high-powered rifle.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhT9Yp1tK1Q">Marjorie Taylor Greene</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Conservative GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, from Georgia, ran an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhT9Yp1tK1Q">ad for a gun giveaway</a> in 2021 that she made in response to what she claimed was Biden’s arming of Islamic terrorists as well as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s allegedly sneaking the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html">Green New Deal</a> and other liberal legislation into a budget proposal.</p>
<p>Firing a weapon from a truck, she announced she would “blow away the Democrats’ socialist agenda.”</p>
<h2>The culture wars continue</h2>
<p>Surrounding himself with soldiers, Greitens goes further than those before him in this latest iteration of the Republican use of guns. </p>
<p>But his strategy is not out of the ordinary for a party that has increasingly relied on provocative images of violent resistance to speak to white voters. </p>
<p>Despite the violence of Jan. 6, conservatives are still digging their own trenches.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185671/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>GOP political ads are becoming more extreme in their use of weapons to demonstrate armed resistance against those opposed to their militant views – including other Republicans.Ryan Neville-Shepard, Associate Professor of Communication, University of ArkansasCasey Ryan Kelly, Professor of Communication Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, University of Nebraska-LincolnLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1822862022-05-04T20:06:56Z2022-05-04T20:06:56ZWe tracked election ad spending for 4,000 Facebook pages. Here’s what they’re posting about – and why cybersecurity is the bigger concern<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460727/original/file-20220502-17-vmttm6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C27%2C6006%2C3980&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Have you noticed your Facebook and Instagram feed filling up with political ads lately?</p>
<p>The social media strategies of many parties and candidates aim to bypass mainstream media to speak directly to voters, but they are often not as sophisticated as is assumed. </p>
<p>As part of a <a href="https://election-ad-data.uq.edu.au">team studying the digital campaign</a>, we have been tracking what the parties and candidates are doing with their Facebook and Instagram ad spend during the election campaign.</p>
<p>Using ads collected from the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ads/library">Facebook Ad Library API</a> (containing sponsored posts declared by the advertiser as political), we are <a href="https://election-ad-data.uq.edu.au/faq">tracking the ad spend for close to 4,000 pages</a>. We gather fresh data every six hours.</p>
<p>At the halfway point in the election campaign, some clear themes are emerging in the ways the parties and candidates are campaigning online.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-wentworth-project-allegra-spenders-profile-rises-but-polarises-182275">The Wentworth Project: Allegra Spender's profile rises, but polarises</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A big spend by ‘teals’ and Labor – and political fragmentation</h2>
<p>The first is the really significant spend from the “teal” Independents. Historically, many successful federal Independents (such as Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott or Cathy McGowan) have come from regional areas.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460715/original/file-20220502-21-jvct6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460715/original/file-20220502-21-jvct6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460715/original/file-20220502-21-jvct6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1188&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460715/original/file-20220502-21-jvct6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1188&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460715/original/file-20220502-21-jvct6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1188&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460715/original/file-20220502-21-jvct6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1493&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460715/original/file-20220502-21-jvct6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460715/original/file-20220502-21-jvct6u.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1493&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Thus far, Labor is spending more than the Coalition on Facebook ads.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://election-ad-data.uq.edu.au/">UQ Election Ad Data Dashboard</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But they rarely had the resources to execute a campaign of the scale we’re seeing from inner city “teals” like Monique Ryan (running in the seat of Kooyong against Treasurer Josh Frydenberg). </p>
<p>Some are spending A$4,000-$5,000 a week on Facebook and Instagram ads. That is enormous. Very few candidates from the major parties would normally spend that amount. Frydenberg is doing so to try to retain his seat.</p>
<p>The second theme emerging is that, so far, Labor is spending more than the Coalition. That’s a product of Labor’s post-2019 election review, which was damning of their digital campaign and emphasised a digital first strategy.</p>
<p>Thirdly, we’re seeing a real diversity of spending across a range of parties and candidates – Jacqui Lambie in Tasmania, Rex Patrick in South Australia, the Liberal Democrats and the United Australia Party in Queensland, for example. </p>
<p>That reflects the broader fragmentation of the political landscape in Australia. Federal elections in Australia are increasingly complex and multi-dimensional, the campaign online is indicative of this trajectory. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460713/original/file-20220502-98897-7sivyi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460713/original/file-20220502-98897-7sivyi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460713/original/file-20220502-98897-7sivyi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460713/original/file-20220502-98897-7sivyi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460713/original/file-20220502-98897-7sivyi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=373&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460713/original/file-20220502-98897-7sivyi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460713/original/file-20220502-98897-7sivyi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460713/original/file-20220502-98897-7sivyi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spending in the seat of Kooyong and Wentworth has been high.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://election-ad-data.uq.edu.au/">UQ Election Ad Data Dashboard</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What are candidates and parties posting about?</h2>
<p>In inner city seats where teal independents are running, the number one issue is overwhelmingly climate change. But “environment” or “climate” is not one of they key terms we have found for the major parties across Australia. Instead, jobs, Medicare and health are more prominent.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460724/original/file-20220502-24-3tdoxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460724/original/file-20220502-24-3tdoxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460724/original/file-20220502-24-3tdoxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460724/original/file-20220502-24-3tdoxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460724/original/file-20220502-24-3tdoxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460724/original/file-20220502-24-3tdoxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460724/original/file-20220502-24-3tdoxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460724/original/file-20220502-24-3tdoxn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=536&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">‘Lies’ is one of the top terms showing up in posts.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://election-ad-data.uq.edu.au/">UQ Election Ad Data Dashboard</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For those in outer metropolitan and regional areas, the data suggests the cost of living is the key issue parties have identified as determining their vote.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460705/original/file-20220502-18-uk7ybc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460705/original/file-20220502-18-uk7ybc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460705/original/file-20220502-18-uk7ybc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460705/original/file-20220502-18-uk7ybc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460705/original/file-20220502-18-uk7ybc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460705/original/file-20220502-18-uk7ybc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460705/original/file-20220502-18-uk7ybc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460705/original/file-20220502-18-uk7ybc.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An ad from the Liberal Party of Australia Facebook page.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=550350769782587&set=a.344989720318694">Liberal Party of Australia Facebook page</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Negative campaigning is showing up, too. One of the top terms appearing in ads from the major parties is “lies”.</p>
<h2>Take talk of ‘microtargeting’ with a grain of salt</h2>
<p>While there is always talk of fine-grained and sophisticated microtargeting strategies, there is good reason to be wary of such claims. </p>
<p>There’s a perception we live in this incredible digital age where each message is tailored to our interests or our personalities. But the reality is quite different. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460707/original/file-20220502-16-n5siej.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460707/original/file-20220502-16-n5siej.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460707/original/file-20220502-16-n5siej.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460707/original/file-20220502-16-n5siej.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460707/original/file-20220502-16-n5siej.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=750&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460707/original/file-20220502-16-n5siej.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460707/original/file-20220502-16-n5siej.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460707/original/file-20220502-16-n5siej.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=943&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Lying is a common theme in many digital ads.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=531724981645348&set=pb.100044235528995.-2207520000..&type=3">The Australian Labor Party Facebook page.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In fact, a great deal of digital campaigning isn’t that targeted at all. Clive Palmer’s campaign is an extreme example of this, “carpet bombing” the electorate with messages about “freedom”. (A reasonable rebuttal might be: can I be free to not receive these messages?) </p>
<p>The reality is that most political advertising online is little more than what I describe in my <a href="https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-68234-7">recent book</a> as a form of “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrowcasting">narrowcasting</a>”, where targeting is based on a basic segmentation of voters into demographic or geographic groups. </p>
<p>While many of the techniques we see in Australian election campaigns have been used overseas, particularly in the US and the UK, our electoral system and electoral rules are different; a mixed electoral system and compulsory voting changes the dynamic enormously. </p>
<p>In the US and the UK, the primary focus is to “get out the vote” rather than persuade voters. But <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-022-09781-7">the evidence</a> suggests the effects of digital campaigns on mobilisation are limited. For persuasion, it is <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20531680221076901">even less</a>.</p>
<p>Most parties also lack the resources to engage in highly differentiated and targeted campaign activity.</p>
<p>In research I recently completed with colleagues from six advanced democracies, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13540688221084039">we showed</a> most campaign activity builds on pre-existing techniques and are far less sophisticated than is often assumed. </p>
<p>Digital campaigning matters, as voters are online. It educates, it informs, it drives the conversation and it can have effects on social cohesion.</p>
<p>But the idea digital campaigning is the canary in the coalmine of electoral manipulation in Australia is hyperbole.</p>
<h2>Data privacy is the broader concern</h2>
<p>Two significant digital campaigning issues we should be concerned about are data privacy and cybersecurity. </p>
<p>Australia is one of the few advanced democracies where political parties are completely <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-did-politicians-and-political-parties-get-my-mobile-number-and-how-is-that-legal-168750">exempt from privacy legislation</a>. </p>
<p>They are able to acquire all sorts of data about you, from the Australian Electoral Commission, from data they collect when they speak to voters and from digital tracking data.</p>
<p>Should we be comfortable with parties collecting this information about us, especially when much of it provides <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/hacking-the-electorate/C0D269F47449B042767A51EC512DD82E">limited campaigning or educational value</a> to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/23723484">parties</a>?</p>
<p>The privacy concerns are significant but so is the broader risk of domestic or foreign actors seeking to acquire this data to sow discord.</p>
<p>Since 2016, political parties in countries such as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/18/australia-political-parties-hacked-sophisticated-state-actor">Australia</a>, the <a href="https://labour.org.uk/about-your-data/">UK</a>, the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-cyber-biden-exclusive-idUKKBN2610IG">US</a>, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-parties-targeted-in-cyberattack-1474470695">Germany,</a> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-politics-5star-idUSKBN1CA1TM">Italy </a>and <a href="https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/04/08/canadian-political-parties-already-targeted-by-foreign-hacking-electronic-spy-agency-says.html?rf">Canada</a> have been the targets of cybersecurity attacks. Many see political parties as the <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/european-election-security-political-parties-cybersecurity/">weak link in the election security</a> of democracy.</p>
<p>That represents a broader risk for all of us. </p>
<p>It is important for us to track what parties and candidates are doing online during a campaign.</p>
<p>But we also need to identify where the real vulnerabilities are, as the threats online are only likely to increase. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/below-the-line-will-different-cultural-groups-favour-one-side-of-politics-this-federal-election-podcast-182236">Below the Line: Will different cultural groups favour one side of politics this federal election? – podcast</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182286/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Glenn Kefford receives funding from the ARC.</span></em></p>The social media strategies of many parties and candidates aim to bypass mainstream media to speak directly to voters, but they are often not as sophisticated as is assumed.Glenn Kefford, Senior Lecturer (Political Science), The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1820582022-04-29T02:26:45Z2022-04-29T02:26:45ZClive Palmer’s promise to cap mortgage rates at 3% would make it much harder to get a home loan<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460476/original/file-20220429-25458-nh3jb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4031%2C3024&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party continues to make waves in the federal election campaign, most recently with advertisements on massive billboards pledging a “maximum 3% interest rate on all home loans for five years”. But does this promise stack up? </p>
<p>Keeping mortgage rates at their record lows for five years is a bold promise. Especially because – as Clive Palmer well knows – the government doesn’t set interest rates. </p>
<p>The key driver is the Reserve Bank of Australia, which sets the cash rate to keep inflation at a low and stable level of 2-3%. But once the cash rate is set, every other bank is entitled to lend money out at whatever competitive rate they want. They frequently diverge from the cash rate based on their cost of obtaining funding from Australian savers and from overseas.</p>
<p>On its <a href="https://www.unitedaustraliaparty.org.au/united-australia-party-outlines-economic-plan-for-freedom-and-prosperity/">website</a>, the United Australia Party (UAP) says it would “use the power of the Constitution to put a cap on the bank home lending rate at a maximum of 3% for the next five years.” (It also promises to introduce a 15% export licence for all iron ore exports from Australia, and “pledge the proceeds from such licences to be used for the retirement of the one trillion-dollar debt mountain that Australia faces”.)</p>
<p>For a moment, let’s run with this 3% idea from the UAP. Imagine for a minute it held the balance of power or even had a majority in both houses of parliament.</p>
<p>If UAP really did intend to try and deliver on an election promise to cap interest rates at 3% for five years, what would the flow-on effects be?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/5-interview-questions-for-the-next-rba-deputy-governor-179369">5 interview questions for the next RBA deputy governor</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Mortgages just for the wealthiest</h2>
<p>The government did control interest rates for many years, until deregulation in the Hawke years. Government control of interest rates and the banking sector made home loans very hard to get, forcing Australians to set up inefficient building societies and credit unions to skirt around the regulations.</p>
<p>But, say the UAP passed a law saying you can’t lift interest rates above 3% – no matter what. You will soon run into problems.</p>
<p>The first is that if banks can’t make a profit on mortgages – if, for example, it costs 4% to borrow and they can only charge 3% – then lending doesn’t make financial sense for them. The banks will just stop writing mortgages entirely.</p>
<p>Even if they can squeak a small profit margin they may only write mortgages for the wealthiest and safest Australians to lend to. Wealthy households are less likely to default and thus are cheaper for banks to lend to.</p>
<p>In other words, a 3% cap on interest rates would lead to a situation where either banks stop mortgages entirely or greatly restrict them. A lot of would-be home owners will not be able to get a mortgage at all. </p>
<p>And if you can’t get a mortgage at all, then for most of us it doesn’t matter what the rate is because you can’t buy a house in the first place. If lending dried up, the number of house buyers would plummet, which would devalue homes. </p>
<p>The only thing worse than a banking system that is expensive is one that is in crisis and potentially getting bailed out or going bankrupt, which might very well imperil the financial stability of the banking sector and derail the economy.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1515224118177968130"}"></div></p>
<h2>OK, how else could they ensure a 3% interest rate for people?</h2>
<p>Apart from changing the law, another way to deliver on this commitment is by hugely increasing government spending. </p>
<p>Perhaps the government could pay home owners the difference between whatever their interest rate is and the promised 3%. So, say your interest rate was 4%. That’s 1% more than the promised 3%, so the government could pay that 1% difference for you, using taxpayer money.</p>
<p>Of course, that would be incredibly costly. Australia’s household debt is almost twice its income. Paying even a small share of the interest payments would be an enormous burden on the budget.</p>
<p>It would be, in effect, a subsidy for all mortgage owners; a hugely expensive giveaway to the richest people in Australia.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/few-restrictions-no-spending-limit-and-almost-no-oversight-welcome-to-political-advertising-in-australia-181248">Few restrictions, no spending limit, and almost no oversight: welcome to political advertising in Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Alright then, what if we just changed the RBA’s job description?</h2>
<p>There is a third way you could cap interest rates at 3% and that is to rewrite the RBA’s mandate and ban them from lifting the cash rate for five years.</p>
<p>But the reason the RBA pushes up interest rates is to help control inflation and the cost of living. That’s why there’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/inflation-hits-an-extraordinary-5-1-how-long-until-mortgage-rates-climb-181832">talk of an interest rate rise</a> after inflation hit a whopping 5.1% this week.</p>
<p>Banning the RBA from pushing up rates comes with real inflationary risks. That would overheat the economy and drive up inflation. You’d see hugely higher prices at the supermarket and the fuel pump.</p>
<p>Perhaps you think homeowners are more deserving than renters or pensioners or anyone in the economy who doesn’t have a mortgage. But I don’t.</p>
<h2>No free lunch</h2>
<p>In a recent podcast <a href="https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-andrew-wilkie-invites-independent-candidates-to-call-him-for-a-chat-about-approaching-a-hung-parliament-181604">interview</a> with Michelle Grattan, independent MP Andrew Wilkie mentioned this UAP ad, saying:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In my opinion, this is the worst campaign I’ve observed, as far as the mud slinging and the dishonesty. There used to be some limits on the dishonesty of the political parties and the candidates but there seem to be no limits this election. There’s a billboard down the road from Clive Palmer’s United Australia Party, promising a 3% maximum mortgage rate. I mean, they know that’s just nonsense.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Whatever your view, it’s worth remembering there is no such thing as a free lunch in the economy. If you want to make something cheaper, you have to pay for it some other way.</p>
<p>You either have to pay for it from taxpayers’ money or you make the banks pay, which comes with a real risk of financial crisis.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/game-of-loans-australias-reserve-bank-loses-its-heir-apparent-178994">Game of Loans: Australia's Reserve Bank loses its heir apparent</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182058/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>From 2011 to 2013 Isaac Gross worked as an economist for the Reserve Bank of Australia.
</span></em></p>The government used to set interest rates but it doesn’t anymore. If UAP really did try to deliver on an election promise to cap interest rates at 3% for five years, what would the consequences be?Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1766762022-04-14T05:44:01Z2022-04-14T05:44:01ZHope? Contempt? Reciprocity? How each political party’s election ads reveal their key messages<p>The federal election campaign is underway and political advertising has really started to ramp up. But who is the target audience for each party’s ad, what are their key messages and how effective will they be?</p>
<p>I research how people or organisations use stories to effect change via, for example, political advertising or entertainment. When I look at each party’s early campaign ads, here’s what stands out for me.</p>
<h2>The Greens: hope, change, power</h2>
<p>The key message at the centre of The Greens ads is hope.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ciTp4Vq_FMw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Australian Greens ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This ad aims to draw attention to “the people demanding change” giving rise to hope – a message that will hit hardest in the early stages of the campaign.</p>
<p>Hope is a powerfully motivating emotion. Probably the most famous recent example is Barack Obama’s “Yes, we can!”, used in a popular <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Barack_Obama_Hope_poster.jpg">poster</a> that boosted interest in his campaign. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00130.x">Science suggests</a> hope does not make people remember new policy positions or political personalities. However, voters who already wanted strong climate action, will be more hopeful and likely to cast their actual vote for the Greens after viewing this commercial.</p>
<h2>Labor: a straightforward argument</h2>
<p>The Labor Party relies on arguments as a means of persuading voters:</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/R3PRYFc3pJA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Labor Party ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Labor wants to persuade Australian voters that the future will be better if you vote for them, underpinned by five key premises: Labor will manufacture more things here, make child care cheaper, lower power bills, invest in fee-free TAFE, and strengthen Medicare.</p>
<p>The argument follows a “topdown” structure, starting out with a general statement idea – that for a better future Australia needs to more local manufacturing, cheaper child care, lower power bills, fee-free TAFE, and stronger Medicare. </p>
<p>From this, a more specific, logical conclusion derived – that Labor can deliver these things to you, the voter.</p>
<p>Whether or not this argument resonates with voters depends firstly on the extent to which voters want these things and secondly on whether they believe Labor can make them happen.</p>
<h2>Liberal Party: contempt</h2>
<p>The Liberal Party’s ads focus attention on contempt for Opposition Leader Anthony Albanese:</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KWQlncRXDKA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Liberal Party ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Contempt is an intense, powerful emotion with clear influence on voters. Contempt encourages avoidance; we try to create as much distance between us and the subject of contempt as we can. Such a response is seldom reasoned, which can make it difficult to counter.</p>
<p>The Liberal Party’s ads aim to make us link Albanese – and by extension, Labor – with a sense of contempt and disgust.</p>
<p>The emotion in these ads seems to be directed at undecided voters, in an effort to harden attitudes.</p>
<h2>The National Party: one good turn deserves another</h2>
<p>The National Party’s ads centre on the idea of reciprocity.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/81-rTftgJlk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">National Party ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The ads hinge on two crucial ideas:</p>
<p>1) if voters want to keep bringing regional Australia to life, they need to give their vote to the Nationals</p>
<p>2) one good turn deserves another; since regional Australia has received from the Nationals, the ads imply, they should give something back.</p>
<p>This network of obligations enables the National Party to forge relationships with regional voters. Failure to honour and observe the rule of reciprocity is deeply frowned upon among many regional Australians; the rule of reciprocity is so influential it does not matter how much regional Australians like the National Party. </p>
<p>If the Nationals do regional Australia a favour, then plenty of regional Australians may feel obliged to do something in return.</p>
<p>People are inclined to reciprocate not only because they are afraid of being judged negatively, but also because they consider it the right thing to do.</p>
<h2>The United Australia Party: ‘that’s my kind of party’</h2>
<p>This United Australia Party (UAP) ad uses music to create a particular ambience.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dMnD_jaOkQo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">United Australia Party ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Music’s behavioural influence is often automatic and the effect considerable.</p>
<p>The attention-grabbing song in this ad – “That’s my kind of party. The United Australia Party” – is energetic. It inspires action. It also positions the UAP as an alternative to the major parties.</p>
<p>This ad may be targeting a voter who either feels voting is not that important or that all the major parties are similar. It may hit a note with a voter who is hesitating about where to direct their vote and is tired of the usual political offerings.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/176676/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom van Laer is a member of the National Tertiary Education Union.</span></em></p>The federal election campaign is underway and political advertising has really started to ramp up. But who is each party targeting and what’s their key message?Tom van Laer, Associate Professor of Narratology, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1812482022-04-14T05:20:11Z2022-04-14T05:20:11ZFew restrictions, no spending limit, and almost no oversight: welcome to political advertising in Australia<p>So the federal election is on. Billboards are suddenly plastered with party slogans, campaign ads are all around us, and our social media feeds are flaring up with political spin.</p>
<p>Political advertising is a major feature of Australian election campaigns. But sometimes it can be difficult to separate facts from scare campaigns, or even to distinguish a government ad from a party ad.</p>
<p>So what are the rules that govern political advertising in the upcoming election campaign?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/as-federal-government-spending-on-small-transport-projects-creeps-up-marginal-seats-get-a-bigger-share-179464">As federal government spending on small transport projects creeps up, marginal seats get a bigger share</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>There are very few restrictions on political advertising</h2>
<p>Political advertising seeks to promote a political party, candidate, or political agenda. These ads can come from political parties themselves, or from anyone else who wants to influence voters and can afford to pay for one. </p>
<p>We have already seen several major advertising campaigns launched for this election, including the Coalition’s “<a href="https://twitter.com/ScottMorrisonMP/status/1512675612796006404">Why I love Australia</a>”, Labor’s “<a href="https://twitter.com/AlboMP/status/1504336732367425539">A better future</a>”, and a series of prominent United Australia Party <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMnD_jaOkQo&ab_channel=UnitedAustraliaParty">ads</a>. </p>
<p>There are no limits on how much political parties, independent candidates, or third parties can spend in a federal election. So the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/clive-palmer-spends-100-times-more-than-major-parties-on-advertising-20220218-p59xq4.html">race is on</a> to raise more money than your opponents so that you can spread your message further and wider. </p>
<p>Some funding also comes from the taxpayer to help cover campaign expenses, such as advertising. The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) reimburses parties or candidates for some of their spending according to the <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/parties_and_representatives/public_funding/">share of the primary vote they achieve</a> in the election. In the last federal election this amounted to <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/financial_disclosure/files/reports/funding-disclosure-2019.pdf">A$70 million in funding</a>. </p>
<p>Political ads need only meet some <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Backgrounders/authorisation.htm#electoralMatter">basic requirements</a>, which are monitored by the AEC and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). </p>
<p>These include identifying who authorised the ad – that’s the bit at the end of a TV or radio ad that sounds like someone trying to break a fast-talking record – and not misleading voters on <em>how</em> <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Backgrounders/authorisation.htm">to cast a vote</a>.</p>
<p>If an ad encourages voters to fill out their voting paper incorrectly, the AEC can intervene, but only to correct that specific part of the ad. ACMA also enforces a “blackout period” on TV and radio ads in the final few days before election day. </p>
<h2>Truth is not a requirement</h2>
<p>When it comes to the content of political ads, there is almost no oversight. </p>
<p>Political ads are not fact-checked. The truth or otherwise of what is said in a political ad is left up to the <a href="https://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/electoral-communication.htm">voter to determine for themselves</a>.</p>
<p>It’s worth noting this hands-off approach is very different to strict rules around commercial advertising. Where a company is alleged to have misled consumers about a product or service, the matter is investigated, the ad may be pulled, and the company could face fines or further penalties. But there are no consequences for political parties if they lie to voters in their ads. </p>
<p>That means bad-faith characterisations of other parties’ policies – or even flatly inaccurate ones – are perfectly OK under the law.</p>
<p>That’s how misleading scare campaigns have been allowed to feature so prominently in recent elections. </p>
<p>During the 2019 election campaign, the Coalition hit Labor with false advertising about “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jun/08/it-felt-like-a-big-tide-how-the-death-tax-lie-infected-australias-election-campaign">death taxes</a>”. And Labor ran the false “Mediscare” <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/no-more-mediscares-australians-want-political-truth-in-advertising-laws-20160708-gq1iu2.html">campaign</a> against the Coalition at the 2016 election. Neither of these campaigns broke any rules. </p>
<p>Democratic politics, and election campaigns in particular, are naturally a contest of ideas. They involve values, promises, “blue sky” thinking, and unproveable claims. </p>
<p>But deliberately false and misleading advertising hurts the democratic process. It can divert voter attention from the real issues and potentially distort election outcomes. </p>
<p>In an attempt to tackle this problem, both South Australia and the ACT have enacted truth in political advertising laws at the state level. At the federal level, however, it’s a case of anything goes. </p>
<h2>What about government advertising?</h2>
<p>Government advertising is different – or it’s supposed to be. It’s advertising funded by the taxpayer for the legitimate purpose of enabling the government of the day to communicate important information to the public.</p>
<p>Government advertising includes, for example, public campaigns to remind people to get their booster shots, or information on how to access assistance in a domestic violence situation. </p>
<p>But sometimes government advertising can shade into political advertising, particularly when governments make ads spruiking their own performance.</p>
<p>Government advertising often ramps up in the pre-election period. We’ve seen some examples of this recently, in the recent blue-shaded advertisements about “<a href="https://twitter.com/SHamiltonian/status/1510119877536669700/photo/1">Australia’s Economic Plan</a>”, or “<a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/morrison-boosts-making-positive-energy-pre-election-ad-splurge-to-almost-31-million/">Making Positive Energy</a>”. It’s not clear what public benefit is served by ads like these. </p>
<p>Government advertising is subject to <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-11/campaign-advertising-guidelines.pdf">guidelines</a> that require campaigns to be justified, objective, and fair, and prohibit the promotion of political party interests. But these guidelines are not enforceable.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/compliance-advice/compliance-advice-independent-communications-committee-government-advertising-campaigns">Independent Communications Committee</a> reviews all campaigns costing more than $250,000, but it only sees them at the proposal stage, and can only provide advice to government.</p>
<p>It has no power to veto a proposed ad campaign. </p>
<h2>What can we expect during the election period?</h2>
<p>We probably won’t be seeing much government advertising over the coming weeks. </p>
<p>The government is now in “caretaker” mode. <a href="https://www.pmc.gov.au/resource-centre/government/guidance-caretaker-conventions">Caretaker conventions</a> state the Department of Finance and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet must review all taxpayer-funded advertising and make recommendations on whether the campaigns should proceed or be deferred.</p>
<p>If a campaign gets the green light, the government still has to get the Opposition’s approval. As a result, any government advertising that looks suspiciously like government self-promotion tends to disappear during elections.</p>
<p>But when it comes to political advertising, the sky is the limit – at least while parties’ campaign funds hold out.</p>
<p>We can expect political ads to continue to ramp up over the coming weeks. The onus will be on each voter to sift through the spin for the facts and for the policies that matter to them.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-vomit-principle-the-dead-bat-the-freeze-how-political-spin-doctors-tactics-aim-to-shape-the-news-106453">The vomit principle, the dead bat, the freeze: how political spin doctors' tactics aim to shape the news</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/181248/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute's activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kate Griffiths does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We can expect political ads to continue to ramp up over the coming weeks. The onus will be on each voter to sift through the spin for the facts and for the policies that matter to them.Anika Stobart, Associate, Grattan InstituteKate Griffiths, Deputy Program Director, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1487712020-11-02T13:24:25Z2020-11-02T13:24:25ZHow tech firms have tried to stop disinformation and voter intimidation – and come up short<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/366799/original/file-20201030-13-dof1wt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C8%2C5559%2C3384&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook and the other social media platform companies are facing a reckoning for their handling of disinformation.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/FacebookDisinformation/a535212ff2c341da999eb969a3e74cda/photo">AP Photo/Noah Berger</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Neither disinformation nor voter intimidation is anything new. But tools developed by leading tech companies including Twitter, Facebook and Google now allow these tactics to <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/27/voter-intimidation-surging-2020-protect-minority-voters-column/6043955002/">scale up</a> dramatically.</p>
<p>As a scholar of <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1195469">cybersecurity</a> and <a href="https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Passcode/Passcode-Voices/2016/0729/Opinion-How-to-make-democracy-harder-to-hack">election security</a>, I have <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3548670">argued</a> that these firms must do more to rein in disinformation, digital repression and voter suppression on their platforms, including by treating these issues as a matter of <a href="https://theconversation.com/notpetya-ransomware-attack-shows-corporate-social-responsibility-should-include-cybersecurity-79810">corporate social responsibility</a>. </p>
<p>Earlier this fall, Twitter announced <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-launches-pre-bunks-get-ahead-voting-misinformation-n1244777?mc_cid=a06a29e8a5&mc_eid=5953720dd6">new measures to tackle disinformation</a>, including false claims about the risks of voting by mail. Facebook has likewise vowed to crack down on disinformation and voter intimidation on its platform, including by removing posts that encourage people to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/10/07/921287946/facebook-vows-to-crack-down-on-voter-intimidation-in-election">monitor polling places</a>. </p>
<p>Google has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/proud-boys-emails-florida/">dropped the Proud Boys domain</a> that Iran allegedly used to send messages to some 25,000 registered Democrats that <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-voter-intimidation-emails-iran-proud-boys-john-ratcliffe-election-2020-10">threatened them</a> if they did not change parties and vote for Trump. </p>
<p>But such <a href="https://theconversation.com/companies-self-regulation-doesnt-have-to-be-bad-for-the-public-117565">self-regulation</a>, while helpful, can go only so far. The time has come for the U.S. to learn from the experiences of other nations and hold tech firms accountable for ensuring that their platforms are not misused to undermine the country’s democratic foundations.</p>
<h2>Voter intimidation</h2>
<p>On Oct. 20, registered Democrats in Florida, a crucial swing state, and Alaska began receiving emails purportedly from the far-right group Proud Boys. The messages were <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-voter-intimidation-emails-iran-proud-boys-john-ratcliffe-election-2020-10">filled with threats</a> up to and including violent reprisals if the receiver did not vote for President Trump and change their party affiliation to Republican. </p>
<p>Less than 24 hours later, on Oct. 21, U.S. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Christopher Wray gave a briefing in which they <a href="https://www.cyberscoop.com/ratcliffe-fbi-iran-proud-boys-voting-email/">publicly attributed</a> this attempt at voter intimidation to Iran. This verdict was later <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/google-voter-intimidation-emails-iran-proud-boys-john-ratcliffe-election-2020-10">corroborated</a> by Google, which has also claimed that more than 90% of these messages were blocked by spam filters. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/20/proud-boys-emails-florida/">rapid timing</a> of the attribution was reportedly the result of the foreign nature of the threat and the fact that it was coming so close to Election Day. But it is important to note that this is just the latest example of such voter intimidation. Other recent incidents include a <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/10/27/voter-intimidation-surging-2020-protect-minority-voters-column/6043955002/">robo-call scheme</a> targeting largely African American cities such as Detroit and Cleveland. </p>
<p>It remains unclear how many of these messages actually reached voters and how in turn these threats changed voter behavior. There is some evidence that <a href="https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/is-republican-voter-suppression-starting-to-backfire.html">such tactics can backfire</a> and lead to higher turnout rates in the targeted population.</p>
<h2>Disinformation on social media</h2>
<p>Effective disinformation campaigns typically have <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/factory-lies-russia-s-disinformation-playbook-exposed-n910316">three components</a>:
</p><ul>
<li>A state-sponsored news outlet to originate the fabrication
</li><li>Alternative media sources willing to spread the disinformation without adequately checking the underlying facts
</li><li>Witting or unwitting “agents of influence”: that is, people to advance the story in other outlets
</li></ul><p></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/366798/original/file-20201030-18-5oke3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Pages from the U.S. State Department's Global Engagement Center report released on Aug. 5, 2020" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/366798/original/file-20201030-18-5oke3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/366798/original/file-20201030-18-5oke3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/366798/original/file-20201030-18-5oke3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/366798/original/file-20201030-18-5oke3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/366798/original/file-20201030-18-5oke3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/366798/original/file-20201030-18-5oke3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/366798/original/file-20201030-18-5oke3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Russia is using a well-developed online operation to spread disinformation, according to the U.S. State Department.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/RussianDisinformation/32b868d4d7464a819b55315107e7cce3/photo">AP Photo/Jon Elswick</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The advent of cyberspace has put the disinformation process into overdrive, both speeding the viral spread of stories across national boundaries and platforms with ease and causing a proliferation in the types of traditional and social media willing to run with fake stories.</p>
<p>To date, the major social media firms have taken a largely piecemeal and fractured approach to managing this complex issue. Twitter announced a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/technology/twitter-political-ads-ban.html">ban on political ads</a> during the 2020 U.S. election season, in part over concerns about enabling the spread of misinformation. Facebook opted for a more <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/10/27/928120956/facebook-stops-new-political-ads-to-try-to-limit-misinformation">limited ban on new political ads</a> one week before the election. </p>
<p>The U.S. has no equivalent of the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/06/frances-election-laws-mean-near-silence-on-massive-campaign-hack.html">French law</a> barring any influencing speech on the day before an election.</p>
<h2>Effects and constraints</h2>
<p>The impacts of these efforts have been muted, in part due to the prevalence of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06930-7">social bots</a> that spread low-credibility information virally across these platforms. No comprehensive data exists on the total amount of disinformation or how it is affecting users. </p>
<p>Some recent studies do shed light, though. For example, one <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1126/science.aau2706">2019 study</a> found that a very small number of Twitter users accounted for the vast majority of exposure to disinformation. </p>
<p>Tech platforms are constrained from doing more by several forces. These include fear of perceived <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/26/facebook-conservatives-2020-421146">political bias</a> and a strong belief among many, including Mark Zuckerberg, in a robust interpretation of <a href="https://apnews.com/article/c3291531831d19ff0eaf8d91aa1415a0">free speech</a>. A related concern of the platform companies is that the more they’re perceived as media gatekeepers, the more likely they will be to face new regulation. </p>
<p>The platform companies are also limited by the technologies and procedures they use to combat disinformation and voter intimidation. For example, Facebook staff reportedly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/30/facebook-leak-reveals-policies-restricting-new-york-post-biden-story">had to manually intervene</a> to limit the spread of a New York Post article about Hunter Biden’s laptop computer that <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-post-hunter-joe-biden-giuliani-red-flags-disinformation-2020-10">could be part of a disinformation campaign</a>. This highlights how the platform companies are playing catch-up in countering disinformation and need to devote more resources to the effort.</p>
<h2>Regulatory options</h2>
<p>There is a growing bipartisan consensus that more must be done to rein in social media excesses and to better manage the dual issues of voter intimidation and disinformation. In recent weeks, we have already seen the U.S. Department of Justice open a new <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-10-25/google-lawsuit-antitrust">antitrust case</a> against Google, which, although it is unrelated to disinformation, can be understood as part of a larger campaign to regulate these behemoths. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>Another tool at the U.S. government’s disposal is <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/09/09/1008223/section-230-internet-law-policy-social-media-misinformation/">revising</a>, or even revoking, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-law-that-made-facebook-what-it-is-today-93931">Section 230</a> of the 1990s-era Communications Decency Act. This law was designed to protect tech firms as they developed from liability for the content that users post to their sites. Many, including former Vice President Joe Biden, <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/09/09/1008223/section-230-internet-law-policy-social-media-misinformation/">argue that it has outlived its usefulness</a>.</p>
<p>Another option to consider is learning from the EU’s approach. In 2018, the European Commission was successful in getting tech firms to adopt the “Code of Practice on Disinformation,” which committed these companies to boost “transparency around political and issue-based advertising.” However, these measures to fight disinformation, and the related EU’s Rapid Alert System, have so far not been able to stem the tide of these threats.</p>
<p>Instead, there are growing calls to pass a host of reforms to ensure that the platforms publicize accurate information, protect sources of accurate information through enhanced cybersecurity requirements and monitor disinformation more effectively. Tech firms in particular could be doing more to make it easier to report disinformation, contact users who have interacted with such content with a warning and take down false information about voting, as Facebook and Twitter have begun to do. </p>
<p>Such steps are just a beginning. Everyone has a role in making democracy harder to hack, but the tech platforms that have done so much to contribute to this problem have an outsized duty to address it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148771/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Shackelford is a principal investigator on grants from the Hewlett Foundation, Indiana Economic Development Corporation, and the Microsoft Corporation supporting both the Ostrom Workshop Program on Cybersecurity and Internet Governance and the Indiana University Cybersecurity Clinic.</span></em></p>The major social media firms have taken a largely piecemeal and fractured approach to managing the problem.Scott Shackelford, Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics; Executive Director, Ostrom Workshop; Cybersecurity Program Chair, IU-Bloomington, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1469042020-10-05T12:07:39Z2020-10-05T12:07:39ZTrump and Biden ads on Facebook and Instagram focus on rallying the base<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/360567/original/file-20200929-24-egxaom.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=22%2C29%2C4897%2C3466&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Online political advertising is mostly attempting to mobilize candidates' existing supporters.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/Election2020Trump/ef88d6bdf3e845b09d2bddc2a41e83dc/photo">AP Photo/Steve Ruark</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The campaigns of Donald Trump and Joe Biden together spent US$86 million on social media advertising between June 1 and Sept. 13, according to Syracuse University’s <a href="https://illuminating.ischool.syr.edu/campaign_2020/">Illuminating 2020 project</a>. The project, which I am part of, tracks the spending and the targets of Facebook and Instagram ad buys, based on data provided by the platforms.</p>
<p>About 40% of that spending came between Aug. 10 and Sept. 13, when the campaigns spent a combined $41 million online. Overall, this is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0894439317726751">roughly double the spending rate</a> as Trump and Hillary Clinton had during the same time period in 2016.</p>
<p>With these ads, which amount to about 40% of both campaigns’ spending, the candidates are trying to mobilize voters – find supporters and then spark them to get involved. </p>
<p><iframe id="JZ42w" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/JZ42w/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Other spending</h2>
<p>About 60% of the campaigns’ spending is aimed at persuading voters – changing hearts and minds or solidifying support among the base. Over the same Aug. 10 to Sept. 4 period, <a href="https://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases-090920/">Biden and Trump spent a combined $60 million</a> on television ads, according to the Wesleyan Media Project. </p>
<p>It is much more expensive to run an ad on TV versus online. A prime-time broadcast television ad costs <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/302200/primetime-tv-cost-commercial-usa/">about $100,000 for 30 seconds</a>, generally reaching <a href="https://www.nielsen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/09/2019-20-dma-ranker.pdf">hundreds of thousands of households</a>, while a social media ad costs a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/business/ads/pricing">few hundred dollars to reach tens of thousands</a> of individual users. Those are estimates – many factors affect the actual cost of both types of ads, including location, timing and target demographics, but digital ads are far cheaper than TV.</p>
<p>Print, radio and billboard ads are a tiny share – usually less than 5% of presidential advertising spending.</p>
<h2>Mobilizing the base</h2>
<p>Nearly all of Trump’s and Biden’s campaigns’ online advertising involves some sort of call to action, urging the ad’s viewers to do something – such as give money, sign a petition, answer a poll, sign up to get emails or watch the latest video ad. Those ads also <a href="https://theconversation.com/amid-pandemic-campaigning-turns-to-the-internet-137745">help the campaigns gain additional data about supporters</a>, like what issues they’re interested in and how they’re involved in their community. The campaigns use that information to develop and run ads in key states, and identify potential supporters who can become local evangelists for the campaign.</p>
<p>Between June 1 and Sept. 13, Trump spent $34.5 million, 86% of his total online spending during that period, on calls to action in the text of the ad. In that same period, Biden’s calls to action cost $25.2 million, or 67% of his online ad spending.</p>
<p><iframe id="HL7Sw" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/HL7Sw/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>State-level spending</h2>
<p>The candidates targeted much of their spending – about one-third of Trump’s and more than half of Biden’s – in a few key states. </p>
<p>Both candidates spent heavily in Florida, California and Pennsylvania, because that’s where the largest populations are. Biden also focused on New York and Michigan; Trump also focused on Texas and Ohio.</p>
<p>These are not necessarily battleground states, but instead places where the candidates have strong bases of support. These supporters are potential campaign volunteers and sources of money for more ads.</p>
<p><iframe id="fpsQm" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/fpsQm/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Demographic differences</h2>
<p>Campaigns target their Facebook ads based on party affiliation, gender and age. Trump’s campaign targets men and women at roughly the same rate, but Biden’s campaign targets women at roughly 3 to 2 – for every $2 they spend on men, they spend $3 on women. Biden’s spending reflects the Democratic Party’s gender dynamics. Women are <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/">more likely to identify as Democrat</a> than Republican.</p>
<p>Trump’s campaign ad spending skews older than Biden’s. Trump spends the largest share of his Facebook ad dollars on people who are 55 or older. Biden’s campaign spends the most money on the age 35-44 demographic. Both campaigns spent less targeting people between 18 and 24, probably because <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-so-few-young-americans-vote-132649">young people are less likely to turn out to vote</a> than their elders. </p>
<p><iframe id="45lRJ" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/45lRJ/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>As the last month of the campaign begins, the candidates will make their final ad purchases. Expect to see online ads continue to run in the states where each campaign has been focusing, calling on supporters to give, act, tell friends and show their support as Election Day nears.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This article has been updated to correct the Biden campaign’s spending figures, which were inaccurate due to a <a href="https://news.illuminating.ischool.syr.edu/2020/10/27/data-problems-and-updates-to-the-website/">data collection error</a>.</em></p>
<p>[<em>The Conversation’s Politics + Society editors pick need-to-know stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/politics-weekly-74/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=politics-need-to-know">Sign up for Politics Weekly</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/146904/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Stromer-Galley receives funding from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. </span></em></p>So far, Trump and Biden are spending money on Facebook and Instagram at roughly the same rate as Trump and Hillary Clinton did during 2016.Jennifer Stromer-Galley, Professor of Information Studies, Syracuse UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1377452020-05-13T12:39:36Z2020-05-13T12:39:36ZAmid pandemic, campaigning turns to the internet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/334131/original/file-20200511-49579-rrao36.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=20%2C14%2C1598%2C741&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Joe Biden's basement bookshelf has become a familiar background for his campaign videos.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/in-this-screengrab-from-joebiden-com-democratic-news-photo/1209520025">Photo by JoeBiden.com via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This feels like it could be the most revolutionary moment in U.S. campaign history: Candidates are robbed of the typical ways for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/15/us/politics/coronavirus-2020-campaign-events.html">connecting with supporters</a> and changing the hearts and minds of the voting public.</p>
<p>The coronavirus has ground the presidential campaigns of Joe Biden and Donald Trump to a near halt. <a href="https://www.theweek.com/speedreads/913484/trump-might-hold-2020-rallies-drivein-theaters">Public rallies aren’t happening</a>, and to follow social distancing guidelines, many of the campaigns’ local offices have <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/thousands-of-candidates-reinventing-politics-on-the-fly-for-the-age-of-pandemic/2020/04/25/99d22368-863b-11ea-ae26-989cfce1c7c7_story.html">stopped bringing in volunteers</a> for phone banking or knocking on doors in local neighborhoods.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=MlESf7IAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I</a> have studied presidential campaigning since the 1996 election. In my book, <a href="https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199731930.001.0001/acprof-9780199731930">“Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age</a>,” I document the ways that campaigns have evolved their campaign tactics to incorporate digital media. </p>
<p>For many years, political operatives have been perfecting their use of the internet’s vast array of social media platforms, websites and digital tools. They’ve identified effective strategies of digital communication with supporters and the press. </p>
<p>Now that traditional in-person campaigning has been severely limited, I believe campaigns will lean heavily on that digital experience, focusing in three areas: social media, campaign-specific mobile apps and paid advertising on social media. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/CABksQ8AT6s","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<figure><figcaption><span class="caption">A recent post from President Donald Trump’s Instagram account.</span></figcaption></figure>
<h2>An initial slowdown</h2>
<p>In general, political campaigns group voters into three categories: <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/hacking-the-electorate/C0D269F47449B042767A51EC512DD82E">supporters, opponents and a group in the middle</a>, sometimes called “persuadables,” who don’t have a strong connection to a political party or who aren’t that into politics. The members of this third group could be persuaded to vote for the candidate on Election Day.</p>
<p>The key function of a campaign is to identify supporters and mobilize them to be the workhorses for the cause: give money, volunteer, promote the candidate and – of course – vote. Campaigns also need to find and communicate to the persuadables, in hopes of getting their backing. And campaigns need to identify those who oppose their candidates, so they don’t waste time and money getting them to vote, which would only help the other side.</p>
<h2>Regrouping before the conventions</h2>
<p>There are natural slowdowns and lulls in the campaign season, including when the presumptive nominees are settled on, but before the party conventions make the nominations official – like now. </p>
<p>During these periods, the candidates reduce their activities aimed at the persuadables, like running TV ads. Instead, they reorganize their campaigns to complete the primary phase, and set up staffing and strategy for the general election.</p>
<p>During this time, the campaigns continue to engage with their supporters in hopes of amassing a large war chest and an army of volunteers to take on the opponent.</p>
<p>Campaigns also use this lull to expand their databases. <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/23723484?seq=1">Data about the public is as vital as money</a>. It’s not enough to know a supporter’s name and address: Understanding their likes, habits, political behavior and even psychological predispositions can give a deeper picture, letting campaigns identify people with similar characteristics as potential supporters. </p>
<p>That’s what the now-reviled campaign data analysis firm <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-cambridge-analyticas-facebook-targeting-model-really-worked-according-to-the-person-who-built-it-94078">Cambridge Analytica</a> <a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/595338116/what-did-cambridge-analytica-do-during-the-2016-election">promised to do</a>. </p>
<p>Similarly, characterizing persuadables and opponents can help campaigns target their efforts efficiently. The Trump campaign identified opponents to his campaign to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/inside-the-trump-bunker-with-12-days-to-go">target them with ads meant to discourage them from voting</a>.</p>
<p>For the next few months, here are three things to watch.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1257795708339421186"}"></div></p>
<h2>Social media</h2>
<p>As I explain in my book, since 1996 the Democratic and Republican party machines have been honing their strategies of communicating through digital media. They use Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat alongside YouTube, email and websites in an integrated communications system. </p>
<p>Even though the digital platforms allow easy two-way communication on blogs, forums and social media, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02865.x">that’s not what the campaigns are looking for</a>. They don’t want long, drawn-out policy debates on their pages. Instead, they want to use interactive elements of the internet to convert supporters and get them to give up data about themselves.</p>
<p>The social media accounts are the workhorses to cultivate supporters and draw them to the campaign’s website, which is home base. That’s where campaigns can <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/05/11/coronavirus-keeps-joe-biden-home-2020-campaign-rolls/5177329002/">deliver their most direct messages</a> and collect that valuable data about their supporters.</p>
<p>The campaigns use a tactic I call “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02865.x">controlled interactivity</a>” on social media to entice followers to share information about themselves. On the campaigns’ official feeds, they post polls, hawk merchandise and push an endless stream of requests to sign up for email or to give money. Anytime someone interacts with one of those posts, the campaign gets a little bit more data. For example, Trump’s Facebook page features posts about his virtual events with “Team Trump.” A click on the “join” link goes to the campaign website, where visitors are asked to give up their personal information: name, address, phone number and email address. When they do, the campaign just got a new supporter to target.</p>
<h2>Mobile apps</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/334133/original/file-20200511-31175-ibibx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/334133/original/file-20200511-31175-ibibx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/334133/original/file-20200511-31175-ibibx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/334133/original/file-20200511-31175-ibibx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/334133/original/file-20200511-31175-ibibx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1067&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/334133/original/file-20200511-31175-ibibx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1340&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/334133/original/file-20200511-31175-ibibx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1340&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/334133/original/file-20200511-31175-ibibx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1340&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Trump campaign has an app encouraging supporters to join the effort.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/app/">Official Trump 2020 App</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Both <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-team-launches-new-app-allowing-supporters-to-engage-with-the-campaign-from-their-couch">Trump</a> and <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-campaign-ramps-up-digital-game-as-election-goes-virtual">Biden</a> have launched mobile applications for iOS and Android devices. It’s worth their campaigns’ money and effort because it can keep supporters energized, and collect more data. </p>
<p>Only supporters – and perhaps curious reporters and opponents’ campaign staff – will download and seriously use the app. Once downloaded, its function is to make supporters feel like an insider by giving them news and “inside looks” at the campaign, tools to donate money and opportunities to become local organizers. Trump’s app encourages users to “Become a Trump Team Leader” by registering voters and knocking on doors in their community.</p>
<p>Most of these political apps are also designed to help grow campaigns’ voter contact lists. Not only do they collect the user’s own contact information but they often seek to access the phone’s entire contact list. These apps may also <a href="https://ourdataourselves.tacticaltech.org/posts/campaign-apps">want access</a> to photos, the user’s social media accounts and location information.</p>
<p>All of this data gives campaigns more extensive pictures of who their most ardent supporters are. That helps them target others with similar characteristics, to bring them into the campaign fold.</p>
<h2>Paid ads</h2>
<p>On television, most ads target persuadables in an effort to influence how they think about the candidates. That’s because television ads do not allow for the degree of fine-grained or micro-targeted advertising that digital media ads provide. </p>
<p>TV ads blanket whole regions, while social media ads pinpoint-target specific people based on the desirable traits that the campaign is after – typically people who look like supporters. This is where all that data comes in. Social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Google allow advertisers to create “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/business/help/465262276878947?id=401668390442328">look-alike</a>” campaigns, where the advertiser feeds the social media company the names and email addresses of known supporters. Then the company’s proprietary algorithms find the email addresses that match, analyze the known Facebook profiles for their interests and behaviors and then <a href="https://blog.hootsuite.com/facebook-lookalike-audiences/">find other users with similar likes, interests and behaviors</a>. </p>
<p>Those people get targeted with ads; if they click on the poll or buy a hat that’s advertised, the campaign grows its support base while also improving its data about who is likely to respond positively to future ads. Political watchers have even speculated that <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/04/how-facebooks-ad-technology-helps-trump-win/606403/">this technique helped Trump win in 2016</a>.</p>
<p>With the conventions now postponed to the end of the summer, Trump and Biden have more time to grow their databases, their financial war chests and their supporter bases. </p>
<p>Although it may seem an unprecedented campaign season that the candidates were ill-equipped for, the truth is that digital campaigning has been well-honed over six election seasons. They just need to do more online than they had planned for.</p>
<p>[<em>Insight, in your inbox each day.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=insight">You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/137745/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Stromer-Galley receives funding from The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. </span></em></p>For many years, political operatives have been perfecting their use of the internet’s vast array of social media platforms, websites and digital tools.Jennifer Stromer-Galley, Professor of Information Studies, Syracuse UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1262602019-11-01T05:23:54Z2019-11-01T05:23:54ZTwitter is banning political ads – but the real battle for democracy is with Facebook and Google<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/299818/original/file-20191101-102182-1au3u3a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=22%2C26%2C2967%2C1967&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Twitter should get credit for its sensible move, but the microblogging company is tiny compared to Facebook and Google.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Finally, some good news from the weirdo-sphere that is social media. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has announced that, effective November 22, the microblogging platform will ban all political advertising – globally. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1189634360472829952"}"></div></p>
<p>This is a momentous move by Twitter. It comes when Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg are under increasing pressure to deal with the amount of mis- and disinformation published via paid political advertising on Facebook. </p>
<p>Zuckerberg recently told a congress hearing Facebook had no plans of fact-checking political ads, and he did not answer a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/live/2019/oct/23/libra-mark-zuckerberg-testifies-live-facebook-cryptocurrency-latest-updates">direct question</a> from Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez if Facebook would take down political ads found to be untrue. Not a good look. </p>
<p>A few days after Zuckerberg’s train wreck appearance before the congress committee, Twitter announced its move.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/merchants-of-misinformation-are-all-over-the-internet-but-the-real-problem-lies-with-us-123177">Merchants of misinformation are all over the internet. But the real problem lies with us</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While Twitter should get credit for its sensible move, the microblogging company is tiny compared to Facebook and Google. So, until the two giants change, Twitter’s political ad ban will have little effect on elections around the globe.</p>
<h2>A symptom of the democratic flu</h2>
<p>It’s important to call out Google on political advertising. The company often manages to fly under the radar on this issue, hiding behind Facebook, which takes most of the flack. </p>
<p>The global social media platforms are injecting poison into liberal democratic systems around the globe. The misinformation and outright lies they allow to be published on their platforms is partly responsible for the increasingly bitter deep partisan divides between different sides of politics in most mature liberal democracies. </p>
<p>Add to this the micro targeting of voters illustrated by the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and a picture emerges of long-standing democratic systems under extreme stress. This is clearly exemplified by the UK parliament’s paralysis over Brexit and the canyon-deep political divides in the US.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-you-should-talk-to-your-children-about-cambridge-analytica-94900">Why you should talk to your children about Cambridge Analytica</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Banning political advertising only deals with a symptom of the democratic flu the platforms are causing. The root cause of the flu is the fact social media platforms are no longer only platforms – they are publishers. </p>
<p>Until they acknowledge this and agree to adhere to the legal and ethical frameworks connected with publishing, our democracies will not recover. </p>
<h2>Not platforms, but publishers</h2>
<p>Being a publisher is complex and much more expensive than being a platform. You have to hire editorial staff (unless you can create algorithms advanced enough to do editorial tasks) to fact-check, edit and curate content. And you have to become a good corporate citizen, accepting you have social responsibilities. </p>
<p>Convincing the platforms to accept their publisher role is the most long-term and sustainable way of dealing with the current toxic content issue.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1iCVn_JvOiQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Accepting publisher status could be a win-win, where the social media companies rebuild trust with the public and governments by acting ethcially and socially responsibly, stopping the poisoning of our democracies.</p>
<p>Mark Zuckerberg claims Facebook users being able to publish lies and misinformation is a free speech issue. It is not. Free speech is a privilege as well as a right and, like all privileges, it comes with responsibilities and limitations. </p>
<p>Examples of limitations are defamation laws and racial vilification and discrimination laws. And that’s just the legal framework. The strong ethical frame work that applies to publishing should be added to this.</p>
<h2>Ownership concentration like never before</h2>
<p>Then, there’s the global social media oligopoly issue. Never before in recorded human history have we seen any industry achieve a level of ownership concentration displayed by the social media companies. This is why this issue is so deeply serious. It’s global, it reaches billions and the money and profits involved is staggering. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-fightback-against-facebook-is-getting-stronger-124120">The fightback against Facebook is getting stronger</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Facebook co-founder, Chris Hughes, got it absolutely right when he in his New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/opinion/sunday/chris-hughes-facebook-zuckerberg.html">article</a> pointed out the Federal Trade Commission – the US equivalent to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission – got it wrong when they allowed Facebook to buy Instagram and WhatsApp. </p>
<p>Hughes wants Facebook broken up and points to the attempts from parts of US civil society moving in this direction. He writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This movement of public servants, scholars and activists deserves our support. Mark Zuckerberg cannot fix Facebook, but our government can.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Yesterday, I posted on my Facebook timeline for the first time since the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke. I made the point that after Twitter’s announcement, the ball is now squarely in Facebook’s and Google’s courts.</p>
<p>For research and professional reasons, I cannot delete my Facebook account. But I can pledge to not be an active Facebook user until the company grows up and shoulders its social responsibility as an ethical publisher that enhances our democracies instead of undermining them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/126260/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Johan Lidberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Until the two giants change, Twitter’s political ad ban will have little effect on elections around the globe.Johan Lidberg, Associate Professor, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1064532019-01-31T19:13:18Z2019-01-31T19:13:18ZThe vomit principle, the dead bat, the freeze: how political spin doctors’ tactics aim to shape the news<p>It’s election season again and behind the scenes, the political “spin doctors” are working around the clock.</p>
<p>They are the campaign advisers, social media strategists, press secretaries and others who craft political messages to help “sell” their candidate. The term “spin” is contested, of course, and like the phrase “fake news” has become an easy retort for people who reject any version of events that does not reflect their own. </p>
<p>But the fact is any good spin doctor employs a range of overt and covert tactics to get their message across, and I’ve listed some below.</p>
<p>This list is <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1329878X16634870">drawn</a> <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1461670042000246089">from</a> a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0363811115301776">range</a> <a href="https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/sideshow">of</a> <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229676143_Spin_From_Tactic_to_Tabloid">academic</a> and other <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Public_Relations_Democracy.html?id=KQNBU4-svD4C&redir_esc=y">sources</a>, <a href="https://www.academia.edu/14805537/RE-ASSESSING_THE_PUBLIC_S_RIGHT_TO_KNOW_The_shift_from_journalism_to_political_PR">and</a> my own personal experience as a “spin doctor”. (I was once a media adviser to Labor’s Anna Bligh, a former Queensland premier. I am also married to one.) It is by no means exhaustive, but it provides an overview of some of the traditional tactics employed by political media advisers and politicians.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/its-reputation-that-matters-when-spin-doctors-go-back-to-the-newsroom-81088">It's reputation that matters when spin doctors go back to the newsroom</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Overt and covert spin tactics</h2>
<p>British researcher Ivor Gaber <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/016344300022004008">talked</a> about “overt” and “covert” tactics used by press secretaries in the Blair government in the UK. </p>
<p>Overt refers to standard or benign public relations tactics, such as writing press releases, staging events, giving speeches and appearing in the media. </p>
<p>Covert, on the other hand, refers to a range of cynical techniques to manage information - these are the more malign tactics most people associate with “spin”.</p>
<p>The list below contains a wide range of “covert” tactics drawn from a range of research and personal experience. Each of these tactics is employed in a bid to exert control over the way the news media report the message:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>the leak:</strong> these are strategic leaks offered by politicians or their staff to journalists, in exchange for no scrutiny. In other words, you only get the leak if you promise not to seek comment from the opposing side, or other critics. This is <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1461670X.2015.1065196">increasing</a> and is a real problem</p></li>
<li><p><strong>the freeze:</strong> punishing journalists for negative reporting</p></li>
<li><p><strong>the spray:</strong> a form of bullying and intimidation, this is another way of punishing journalists for negative coverage. Many political reporters who file an unfavourable story can expect to “cop a spray” over the phone after it’s published</p></li>
<li><p><strong>the drip:</strong> the act of keeping favoured reporters on a drip of exclusive information</p></li>
<li><p><strong>staying on message</strong>: the goal of every public appearance or interview by a politician. In itself, it’s not a malign tactic, but the constant repetition of the same messages without answering questions can be a form of obfuscation</p></li>
<li><p><strong>pivoting:</strong> this refers to politicians shifting away from a difficult question or issue to the one he or she wants to talk about</p></li>
<li><p><strong>the vomit principle:</strong> this rule of thumb is widely referred to in political offices. The idea is that if you repeat something so often you feel like vomiting, only then is it likely to be cutting through with the public</p></li>
<li><p><strong>playing a dead bat</strong>: this refers to not responding to a media inquiry or giving a minimal response in an effort to kill the story</p></li>
<li><p><strong>the truth, but not the whole truth:</strong> this refers to being selective with what one reveals, sharing only the most beneficial or least damaging information</p></li>
<li><p><strong>throwing out the bodies/taking out the garbage:</strong> these tactics are used to disclose damaging information under the cover of a major distraction. The classic example often used is that of Jo Moore, a media adviser in the Blair government in the UK. On the day of the 9/11 attacks she <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1358985/Sept-11-a-good-day-to-bury-bad-news.html">sent out an email saying</a>: “It is now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury. Councillors expenses?” Other common days to bury bad news are Christmas Eve, New Year’s Eve, grand final day, Melbourne Cup day, or a distraction like a royal visit</p></li>
<li><p><strong>get rid of it now:</strong> the aim of this tactic is to release all of the damaging information on an issue at one time, so the negative story can be dealt with quickly rather than allowing it to bleed on for weeks in the media. One media adviser I interviewed explained it like this: “It’s a truism in politics - If you’ve got to eat a shit sandwich you’ve got to eat it straight away… The advice was always, ‘Get rid of it now. Go and deal with it now’.”</p></li>
<li><p><strong>fire-breaking:</strong> setting up or staging a diversion to distract attention away from another issue. In the film <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/">Wag the Dog</a>, the US president fabricates a war in Albania to distract from a sex scandal. Less extreme examples would be launching a new policy to distract from a negative issue in an attempt to shift the media’s attention</p></li>
<li><p><strong>kite-flying:</strong> this means testing or floating an idea before making a commitment to announce it</p></li>
<li><p><strong>feeding or starving a story:</strong> feeding a story means keeping it alive by commenting on it in the media. Starving a story means starving it of oxygen by not commenting on it. The theory being that after a while the media will get bored and move on</p></li>
<li><p><strong>keeping out of the media/being a small target:</strong> this is a useful tactic if the politician is unpopular and affects the polls, has a controversial portfolio or is an accident-prone poor performer</p></li>
<li><p><strong>flying under the radar:</strong> this refers to just quietly getting on with things without publicising it</p></li>
<li><p><strong>dishing dirt:</strong> this is where old claims suddenly emerge publicly before or during an election in an effort to smear someone’s reputation. The “dirt” can come from outside or inside a party. It’s a tactic used to try to destroy someone’s career</p></li>
<li><p><strong>dog-whistling:</strong> <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/why-politicians-love-to-play-the-wedgeandblockgame-20150901-gjca68.html">using specific subtle language</a> and messages to target a particular section of the audience</p></li>
<li><p><strong>wedging:</strong> this tactic involves raising an issue that is popular in the electorate and sensitive to the party you are opposing to “wedge” them in to a difficult position and sow division in the party. </p></li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>To hear Caroline Fisher in conversation with Michelle Grattan in a special election spin-themed episode of our podcast <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/podcasts/trust-me-podcast">Trust Me, I’m An Expert</a>, click <a href="https://theconversation.com/trust-me-im-an-expert-how-to-spot-the-work-of-a-political-spin-doctor-this-election-season-106338">here</a> or search for it in your podcast app.</p>
<h2>New to podcasts?</h2>
<p>Podcasts are often best enjoyed using a podcast app. All iPhones come with the Apple Podcasts app already installed, or you may want to listen and subscribe on another app such as Pocket Casts (click <a href="https://pca.st/VTv7">here</a> to listen to Trust Me, I’m An Expert on Pocket Casts).</p>
<p>You can also hear us on Stitcher, Spotify or any of the apps below. Just pick a service from one of those listed below and click on the icon to find Trust Me, I’m An Expert.</p>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/trust-me-im-an-expert/id1290047736?mt=2&ign-mpt=uo%3D8"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233721/original/file-20180827-75984-1gfuvlr.png" alt="Listen on Apple Podcasts" width="268" height="68"></a> <a href="https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly90aGVjb252ZXJzYXRpb24uY29tL2F1L3BvZGNhc3RzL3RydXN0LW1lLXBvZGNhc3QucnNz"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233720/original/file-20180827-75978-3mdxcf.png" alt="" width="268" height="68"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/the-conversation/trust-me-im-an-expert"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233716/original/file-20180827-75981-pdp50i.png" alt="Stitcher" width="300" height="88"></a> <a href="https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/Trust-Me-Im-An-Expert-p1035757/"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233723/original/file-20180827-75984-f0y2gb.png" alt="Listen on TuneIn" width="318" height="125"></a></p>
<p><a href="https://radiopublic.com/trust-me-im-an-expert-Wa3E5A"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-152" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233717/original/file-20180827-75990-86y5tg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" alt="Listen on RadioPublic" width="268" height="87"></a> <a href="https://open.spotify.com/show/7myc7drbLJVaRitAMXLB7V"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237984/original/file-20180925-149976-1ks72uy.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=268&fit=clip" width="268" height="82"></a> </p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106453/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Caroline Fisher is a former media adviser to Anna Bligh. Her husband, Matthew Franklin, is a media adviser to Labor MP Anthony Albanese. </span></em></p>Any good political spin doctor employs a range of overt and covert tactics to get their message across. Here are some of the most common ones.Caroline Fisher, Assistant Professor in Journalism, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1076732018-12-03T11:34:47Z2018-12-03T11:34:47ZThe big lessons of political advertising in 2018<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248194/original/file-20181130-194932-49gcvn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=11%2C7%2C1174%2C787&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Screen shot of Beto O'Rourke's Facebook ad, 2018</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/betoorourke/videos/our-live-ad/238846943457943/">Facebook</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The 2018 midterm elections are in the books, the winners have been declared and the 30-second attack ads are – finally – over. </p>
<p><a href="http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/about/">As co-directors</a> of the <a href="http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/">Wesleyan Media Project</a>, which has <a href="http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/category/releases/year-end-summaries/">tracked and analyzed campaign advertising</a> since 2010, we spend a lot of time assessing trends in the volume and content of political advertising.</p>
<p>Because we have television <a href="http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/dataaccess/">data</a> that span a number of elections, we can provide detailed information on how prominent TV ads are overall or in any given location, how many different types of sponsors are active and how the content of advertising compares to prior election cycles. </p>
<p>Of course, television is not the only medium through which campaigns attempt to reach voters. But online advertising, which represents the biggest growth market, has been much harder to track. </p>
<p>Prior to May of 2018, for instance, social media giants like <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/03/low-transparency-low-regulation-online-political-ads-skyrocket/">Google and Facebook did not release any information at all</a> on political advertising, so tracking online advertising began in earnest only this cycle. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KRImdiPpd-g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Florida Democratic congressional candidate Mary Barzee Flores focused on health care in this ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Although Americans frequently complain about campaign advertising, it remains an important way through which <a href="https://theconversation.com/campaign-spending-isnt-the-problem-where-the-money-comes-from-is-104093">candidates for office can communicate their ideas directly to citizens</a>, especially those who would not necessarily seek out the information themselves. </p>
<p>What role did political advertising play in the 2018 midterm elections? Here are our top observations:</p>
<h2><strong>1.</strong> Digital advertising grew in 2018.</h2>
<p>Data on digital ads in prior cycles are not readily available, but we know from campaigns and practitioners that the dollars spent in online advertising are growing quickly. <a href="https://www.facebook.com/ads/archive/report/">Facebook</a> reports that just under US$400 million was spent on its platform for political ads, ranging from U.S. Senate races to county sheriff, between May of 2018 and Election Day. </p>
<p><a href="https://transparencyreport.google.com/political-ads/overview?hl=en">Google</a> reports about $70 million in spending on ads in races for the U.S. Senate and House on its ad network during a comparable time period. </p>
<p>Some candidates prioritized digital advertising over traditional television ads. For example, <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Beto_O%27Rourke">Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke</a> spent at least $8 million on Facebook and another $2 million on Google. That was about 34 percent of the $29.4 million total that his campaign spent on advertising, if we include the $19.4 million spent on broadcast television in 2018. </p>
<p>To be sure, O’Rourke was an outlier. We <a href="http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases/101818-digital/">found</a> in October that about 10 percent of spending by Senate candidates on advertising was on digital ads between May 31 and Oct. 15, 2018. </p>
<p>Still – in a fragmenting media environment where people receive information from a variety of different sources and spend substantial time on social media and online – you might assume that campaigns’ heavy focus on digital advertising would displace television advertising. </p>
<p>Nothing could be further from the truth.</p>
<h2><strong>2.</strong> TV is still important to congressional and statewide campaigns.</h2>
<p>This is demonstrated by the record number of television ads in 2018. Data from our project show that the number of ads aired in races for governor, U.S. Senate and U.S. House increased by 58 percent from 2014 to 2018, from 2.5 million to almost 4 million ad airings. </p>
<p><iframe id="AfpN7" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/AfpN7/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The biggest increase was in U.S. House races, where ad airings rose from under 600,000 in 2014 to over 1.2 million in 2018. The large number of competitive races in 2018, especially in the U.S. House, may account for much of the increase. </p>
<h2><strong>3.</strong> The election was about health care.</h2>
<p>Even in a fragmented media era with a hyper-polarized electorate, advertising in 2018 shows that it is still possible to find agreement across campaigns on the importance of particular issues. </p>
<p>In this cycle, that issue was clearly health care. </p>
<p>More than a third of the record-breaking number of ads aired in federal and gubernatorial races mentioned health care, and the attention to health care as an issue only grew throughout the cycle, with 41.4 percent of all airings in the post-Labor Day period mentioning the issue. In total, 1.4 million airings mentioned health care and 979,249 of those aired between Sept. 4 and Election Day. Health care was by far the most mentioned issue. </p>
<p><iframe id="0lLFv" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/0lLFv/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>The dominance of health care was driven by the laser focus on the issue on the Democratic side. A little more than half of pro-Democratic ads in federal races during the post-Labor Day period mentioned the topic. By contrast, the second largest issue was taxes, at 14.7 percent of airings. </p>
<p>Although pro-Republican airings in federal races talked more about taxes during this window – 35.3 percent – than any other issue, health care ran a close second, appearing in nearly a third of pro-Republican airings. </p>
<p>Pro-Democratic gubernatorial airings also talked more about health care – 45.5 percent – than any other single issue. Education and taxes ranked second and third, respectively. </p>
<p>Pro-Republican gubernatorial airings were the only ones that did not include health care in the top two topics, but the issue did rank fifth in percentage of airings in the post-Labor Day period. It was behind taxes, education, jobs and public safety issues.</p>
<p><iframe id="qPc48" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/qPc48/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2><strong>4.</strong> Outside groups continue to be active.</h2>
<p>Outside groups paid for 22 percent of ads aired in U.S. House races in 2018, an increase over the 15 percent of group airings in 2016. And those outside groups paid for a little more than one-third of all ads aired in U.S. Senate races, a slight decrease from 2016. </p>
<p>In partnership with the <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/">Center for Responsive Politics</a>, we categorize these groups into three classifications: full-disclosure groups, meaning they disclose contributor lists to the Federal Election Commission; nondisclosing dark money groups that are most often 501(c)4 nonprofits; and partial-disclosure groups that identify donors but also accept contributions from dark money sources. </p>
<p>In past cycles, we found that dark money was more prevalent among Republican groups than pro-Democratic ones. This cycle, the pattern flipped. </p>
<p>One in four, or 25 percent, of ads aired by groups on behalf of Democratic House candidates in the election year was from a dark money group. Only about 12 percent of pro-Republican ads aired by groups in House races was from a dark money sponsor. </p>
<p>In Senate races, dark money sponsors for Democrats and Republicans were about equal in share, roughly one in every three outside group ads on either side of the aisle.</p>
<h2>Nowhere to hide</h2>
<p>All told, 2018 was a “do everything” election, where many campaigns invested heavily in traditional TV ads and online advertising facilitated by social media. </p>
<p>We have long suspected that TV ads would decline as digital ascended. That may yet happen, but in 2018 voters were truly bombarded by ads on their TV screens. </p>
<p>Political ads may have stopped for the moment, but the reprieve will be brief. </p>
<p>Our data show that election off-years, as 2019 is, will still feature substantial amounts of campaign advertising, often reminding voters about accomplishments in office or setting up attacks on vulnerable incumbents. </p>
<p>Until those start, enjoy the brief break.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107673/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Erika Franklin Fowler receives funding from Knight Foundation and serves as Chair of the Political Advertising Committee of Social Science One. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Franz receives funding from the Knight Foundation and is a member of the Political Advertising Committee of Social Science One.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Travis N. Ridout receives funding from Knight Foundation. </span></em></p>Health care dominated 2018’s political ads. Digital advertising grew, but hasn’t yet killed TV’s share. And dark money favored Democrats, say scholars studying the volume and content of campaign ads.Erika Franklin Fowler, Associate Professor of Government, Wesleyan UniversityMichael Franz, Professor of Government, Bowdoin CollegeTravis N. Ridout, Professor of Government and Public Policy, Washington State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/943922018-04-05T10:57:09Z2018-04-05T10:57:09ZAmerican broadcasting has always been closely intertwined with American politics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213288/original/file-20180404-189804-u1ho88.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Louisiana's populist politician Huey Long, giving an address on CBS Radio in 1934</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Louisiana State University</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Local television viewers around the United States <a href="https://theconcourse.deadspin.com/how-americas-largest-local-tv-owner-turned-its-news-anc-1824233490">were recently alerted</a> to a <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/sinclair-forces-reporters-to-read-script-about-fake-news-63ae6fcea30e/">“troubling trend” that’s “extremely dangerous to democracy.”</a></p>
<p>Sinclair Broadcast Group, one of America’s <a href="http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2017/10/26/fcc-sinclair-tribune">dominant television station owners</a>, commanded its anchors to deliver a scripted commentary, warning audiences about “one sided news stories plaguing our country” and media outlets that publish “fake stories … that just aren’t true.”</p>
<p>This might sound like a media literacy lesson, offered in the public interest. But the invocation of “biased and false news” so closely echoes charges from the Trump administration that <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/2/17189302/sinclair-broadcast-fake-news-biased-trump-viral-video">many observers cried foul</a>. </p>
<p>Sinclair’s record of broadcasting news content favorable to the Trump administration, including mandated program segments such as the “<a href="http://www.newscaststudio.com/2015/11/19/sinclair-creates-terrorism-alert-desk/">Terrorism Alert Desk</a>,” and “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/BottomLineWithBoris/">Bottom Line with Boris</a>,” with former Trump administration official Boris Epshteyn, provides additional evidence of partisan bias. </p>
<p>So, is it time, as some <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/opinion/trump-sinclair-tribune-america.html">commentators are suggesting</a>, to restore the Fairness Doctrine, which used to require broadcasters “to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was fair and balanced”? That policy, adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in 1949, was repealed in 1987. It supposedly sustained responsible political debate on the nation’s airwaves until its disappearance during the Reagan administration.</p>
<p>I would argue that nostalgic calls for the restoration of a golden age of civil political discussion on America’s airwaves mistake what actually happened in those decades.</p>
<h2>Airtime for Nazis, socialists, communists</h2>
<p>Politics and broadcasting have been consistently intertwined in American history. As <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YxTJsxoAAAAJ&hl=en">I have found</a> in my own <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1464884910379707">research</a>, the commercial broadcasting community (including advertisers) has consistently aligned news content and commentary in ways favorable to the White House. </p>
<p>But such episodes are often conveniently forgotten. </p>
<p>As Mitchell Stephens’ <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Voice_of_America.html?id=eP-fDgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false">new biography of journalist Lowell Thomas</a> recounts, and as numerous <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=AspCnwEACAAJ&dq=Ed+Bliss+Now+The+News&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB8f345qDaAhUB64MKHd2RBwsQ6AEILDAB">earlier scholars</a> detailed, U.S. broadcast journalism originated more as subjective and biased commentary than as reportage. </p>
<p>The vast majority of 1930s radio “news” was politically slanted analysis by veteran journalists like Thomas, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=H.V.+Kaltenborn+union&btnG=">H.V. Kaltenborn</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V7EVpYeCvg">Boake Carter</a>. Kaltenborn, for example, was notable for his anti-union commentaries. </p>
<p>The uncertain nature of early broadcast regulation, combined with pressure from organized interest groups and politicians, all made the exact parameters of political speech on American radio ambiguous in the 1930s.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213290/original/file-20180404-189813-11ymb1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/213290/original/file-20180404-189813-11ymb1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=767&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213290/original/file-20180404-189813-11ymb1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=767&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213290/original/file-20180404-189813-11ymb1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=767&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213290/original/file-20180404-189813-11ymb1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=964&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213290/original/file-20180404-189813-11ymb1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=964&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/213290/original/file-20180404-189813-11ymb1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=964&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ninety million listeners tuned in and heard Father Charles Coughlin, known as the ‘Radio Priest’ of the Depression, defend fascists and attack Jews and communists.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Library of Congress</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So the networks lent their microphones to a wide range of views from the quasi-fascists like <a href="https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-E-Coughlin">Father Charles Coughlin</a> (the “Radio Priest”), to homespun socialists like <a href="https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Speeches_Long_EveryManKing.htm">Huey Long</a> and union leaders like the American Federation of Labor’s <a href="https://star1.loc.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/4065/sonic.txt">William Green</a>. As <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=haWh203m7aIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Douglas+Craig+Fireside+Politics&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpi8qv56DaAhVLyYMKHfYjB-cQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=Douglas%20Craig%20Fireside%20Politics&f=false">Douglas Craig</a>, <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Uy6lWnBcjNYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=David+Goodman+Radio%27s+Civic+Ambition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOoNO_56DaAhXE44MKHZr5AJkQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=David%20Goodman%20Radio's%20Civic%20Ambition&f=false">David Goodman</a> and numerous other scholars have pointed out, political broadcasting in the 1930s was vibrant, fertile and diverse to an extent unmatched to the present day. </p>
<p>For example: In 1936, both CBS and NBC aired <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Six_Minutes_in_Berlin.html?id=_xB7DQAAQBAJ">Nazi propaganda from the Berlin Olympic Games</a>. They also <a href="https://star1.loc.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/4065/sonic.txt">broadcast live from the Communist Party</a> of the United States of America nominating convention. Programs like “University of Chicago Roundtable,” and “America’s Town Meeting of the Air” aired provocative political discussion that engaged and educated American audiences by exposing them to diverse viewpoints.</p>
<h2>Airwaves rein themselves in</h2>
<p>But as war neared, U.S. political broadcasting narrowed its range. </p>
<p>The Roosevelt administration began to carefully police the airwaves. CBS’ highly rated news commentator, Boake Carter, had often criticized President Roosevelt’s policies. But when he <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=lAdv3youHkYC&pg=PA89&dq=%22Now+the+News%22+%22Boake+Carter,+who+had+said+that+Anschluss+might+right%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjwssuZwZ_aAhUmyoMKHVlIDboQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Now%20the%20News%22%20%22Boake%20Carter%2C%20who%20had%20said%20that%20Anschluss%20might%20right%22&f=false">applauded the Anschluss,</a> Germany’s annexation of Austria in 1938, and expressed admiration for Nazi policies, the White House acted. </p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01439688200260131?journalCode=chjf20">media historian David Culbert revealed</a>, Roosevelt’s adviser Stephen T. Early secretly contacted CBS and Carter’s sponsor, General Foods, to silence Carter. Despite high ratings and a popular following, Carter’s CBS contract was not renewed. Within weeks he was gone.</p>
<p>Broadcasting’s self-censorship under government pressure expanded at the start of World War II. Circumscribing critical analysis and channeling commentary to the political center pleased advertisers and politicians.</p>
<p>With the assistance of such broadcasting pioneers as Edward R. Murrow, subjective radio news commentary morphed into the type of observational reporting now identified as broadcast journalism. </p>
<p>The most famous example of this shift occurred in 1943. That year Cecil Brown, CBS’s top-rated news analyst and author of the best-selling “Suez to Singapore,” <a href="https://search.proquest.com/openview/ba015a60e32458dbb27cd3f65757c767/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=1821075">dared to criticize the war effort</a> he witnessed on the American homefront. Brown was fired, and <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Cecil_Brown.html?id=_u02DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false">his dismissal proved a warning</a> to every other broadcast commentator. </p>
<p>Not everyone was happy with the neutering of news and opinion on American airwaves. In response to the Brown firing, FCC Chair James Lawrence Fly criticized what he considered corporate censorship. </p>
<p>“It’s a little strange,” <a href="https://archive.org/stream/americanjournali14amer/americanjournali14amer_djvu.txt">Fly told the press</a>, “to reach the conclusion that all Americans are to enjoy free speech except radio commentators.”</p>
<p>But removing partisan politics from broadcast journalism <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Zb-j6Pwcvq8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Susan+Douglas%22+%22Listening+In%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiwyvGakaHaAhUHxoMKHbg3CmYQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=%22By%201943%22&f=false">increased advertising revenue</a> and <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08821127.2007.10678081">proved remarkably lucrative</a> for U.S. broadcasters during World War II. </p>
<p>With the lesson learned, and with the support of the advertising community, America’s broadcasters aimed to address only the “<a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_vital_center.html?id=7ttPAQAAIAAJ">vital center</a>” of American politics in the postwar years. </p>
<h2>Still, politics persisted</h2>
<p>It would, however, be a mistake to believe that the Fairness Doctrine silenced fractious political discourse on the American airwaves. </p>
<p>Throughout the decades that the Fairness Doctrine remained official policy, controversial political broadcasts aired regularly on American television and radio. There was <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/joe-pyne-first-shock-jock-180963237/">Joe Pyne</a>, whose show at its zenith in the 1960s attracted a reported 10 million viewers. Pyne insulted the hippies, Klansmen and civil rights activists he invited to his studio. Though the show is recalled today more for its outrageousness, it was a political show and Pyne propagated a conservative, law-and-order, patriotic message. </p>
<p>Then there’s Bob Grant, who broadcast a popular radio show in New York City throughout the 1970s. Grant’s “arch disdain for liberals, prominent black people, welfare recipients, feminists, gay people, and anyone who disagreed with him,” <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/nyregion/bob-grant-a-pioneer-of-right-wing-talk-radio-dies-at-84.html">wrote The New York Times</a>, “was familiar to his listeners.” </p>
<p>Nationally syndicated programs like “Donohue” offered liberal perspectives, and even the “CBS Evening News” brought back commentary, with veteran journalist <a href="http://www.museum.tv/eotv/sevareideri.htm">Eric Sevareid</a> providing perspective on the daily news each weeknight.</p>
<p>I’m not equating the well-reasoned, often brilliant political commentary offered by Eric Sevareid to Sinclair Broadcast Group’s transparent political advocacy. Sevareid reached a much larger percentage of the American populace than all the Sinclair newscasts combined, and he was therefore far more influential. </p>
<p>But to express surprise that Sinclair now shapes news content and commentary to be more hospitable to political advertising, and more supportive of the current administration, ignores the fact that political commentary has always sold well in the American commercial system. </p>
<p>I believe Sinclair’s management has identified an underutilized segment of the local TV news advertising market – the pro-Trump segment – as the 2018 midterm elections approach. The broadcaster is now shaping its news products to more effectively appeal to the audience for the political advertisements it seeks to sell this fall. </p>
<p>This economic interest closely aligns with Sinclair’s current political and regulatory imperatives. It makes the propagating of biased news content even more effective from Sinclair’s perspective. </p>
<p>Sinclair clearly hopes that the political consultants who purchase campaign ads, and the federal regulators who must <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/sinclair-media-awaiting-massive-broadcast-merger-gets-trump-defense/">approve their planned purchase</a> of Tribune Broadcasting’s 42 stations, will appreciate their recent media literacy efforts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94392/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael J. Socolow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Sinclair network anchors decrying ‘fake stories’ have been condemned for giving biased support to President Trump. But nostalgic calls to restore civil political discussion on the air ignore history.Michael J. Socolow, Associate professor, communication and journalism, University of MaineLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/937172018-03-22T04:37:17Z2018-03-22T04:37:17ZAustralia should strengthen its privacy laws and remove exemptions for politicians<p>As revelations <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-21/cambridge-analytica-in-australia/9570432">continue to unfold</a> about the misuse of personal data by Cambridge Analytica, many Australians are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/22/australias-political-parties-defend-privacy-exemption-in-wake-of-cambridge-analytica">only just learning</a> that Australian politicians have given themselves a free kick to <a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/41.%20Political%20Exemption/exemption-registered-political-parties-political-acts-and-pract">bypass privacy laws</a>. </p>
<p>Indeed, Australian data privacy laws are generally weak when compared with those in the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union. They fall short in both specific exemptions for politicians, and because individuals cannot enforce laws even where they do exist.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-privacy-laws-gutted-in-court-ruling-on-what-is-personal-information-71486">Australia's privacy laws gutted in court ruling on what is 'personal information'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>While Australia’s major political parties have <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-parties-deny-using-data-firm-cambridge-analytica">denied</a> using the services of Cambridge Analytica, they do engage in substantial data operations – including the Liberal Party’s <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/cyber-minister-refuses-to-be-drawn-into-sa-election-data-mining-claims">use of the i360 app</a> in the recent South Australian election. How well this microtargeting of voters works to sway political views is <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/the-noisy-fallacies-of-psychographic-targeting/amp">disputed</a>, but the claims are credible enough to spur demand for these tools.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"976118543317057536"}"></div></p>
<p>Greens leader Richard di Natale told <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/company-tax-cuts-will-not-lead-to-wage-growth-di-natale/9574882">RN Breakfast</a> this morning that political parties “shouldn’t be let off the hook”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All political parties use databases to engage with voters, but they’re exempt from privacy laws so there’s no transparency about what anybody’s doing. And that’s why it’s really important that we go back, remove those exemptions, ensure that there’s some transparency, and allow people to decide whether they think it’s appropriate.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Why should politicians be exempt from privacy laws?</h2>
<p>The exemption for politicians was introduced way back in the <a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/41.%20Political%20Exemption/exemption-registered-political-parties-political-acts-and-pract">Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000</a>. The Attorney-General at the time, Daryl Williams, justified the exemption on the basis that freedom of political communication was vital to Australia’s democratic process. He said the exemption was:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…designed to encourage that freedom and enhance the operation of the electoral and political process in Australia.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Malcolm Crompton, the then Privacy Commissioner, argued against the exemption, stating that political institutions: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>…should follow the same practices and principles that are required in the wider community.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Other politicians from outside the two main parties, such as Senator Natasha Stott Despoja in 2006, have tried to remove the exemptions for similar reasons, but failed to gain support from the major parties.</p>
<h2>What laws are politicians exempt from?</h2>
<h3>Privacy Act</h3>
<p>The <a href="https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy-law/privacy-act/">Privacy Act</a> gives you control over the way your personal information is handled, including knowing why your personal information is being collected, how it will be used, and to whom it will be disclosed. It also allows to you to make a complaint (but not take legal action) if you think your personal information has been mishandled.</p>
<p>“Registered political parties” are <a href="https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/pa1988108/s7c.html">exempt from the operation of the Privacy Act 1998</a>, and <a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/41.%20Political%20Exemption/exemption-registered-political-parties-political-acts-and-pract">so are</a> the political “acts and practices” of certain entities, including:</p>
<ul>
<li>political representatives — MPs and local government councillors;</li>
<li>contractors and subcontractors of registered political parties and political representatives; and</li>
<li>volunteers for registered political parties.</li>
</ul>
<p>This means that if a company like Cambridge Analytica was contracted to a party or MP in Australia, their activities may well be exempt.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-there-such-a-thing-as-online-privacy-7-essential-reads-88849">Is there such a thing as online privacy? 7 essential reads</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h3>Spam Act</h3>
<p>Under the <a href="https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sa200366/sch1.html">Spam Act 2003</a>, organisations cannot email you advertisements without your request or consent. They must also include an unsubscribe notice at the end of a spam message, which allows you to opt out of unwanted repeat messaging. However, the Act says that it has no effect on “implied freedom of political communication”.</p>
<h3>Do Not Call Register</h3>
<p>Even if you have your number listed on the <a href="https://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dncra2006201/sch1.html">Do Not Call Register</a>, a political party or candidate can authorise a call to you, at home or at work, if one purpose is fundraising. It also permits other uses.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"787088619479535617"}"></div></p>
<h2>How do Australian privacy laws fall short?</h2>
<h3>No right to sue</h3>
<p>Citizens can sue for some version of a breach of privacy in the UK, EU, US, Canada and even New Zealand. But there is still no constitutional or legal right that an individual (or class) can enforce over intrusion of privacy in Australia. </p>
<p>After exhaustive consultations in 2008 and 2014, the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) recommended a modest and carefully limited statutory tort – a right to dispute a serious breach of privacy in court. However, both major parties effectively rejected the ALRC recommendation. </p>
<h3>No ‘legal standing’ in the US</h3>
<p>Legal standing refers to the right to be a party to legal proceedings. As the tech giants that are most adept at gathering and using user data – Facebook, Google, Apple, Amazon – are based in the US, Australians generally do not have legal standing to bring action against them if they suspect a privacy violation. EU citizens, by contrast, have the benefit of the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opcl/judicial-redress-act-2015">Judicial Redress Act 2015</a> (US) for some potential misuses of cloud-hosted data. </p>
<h3>Poor policing of consent agreements</h3>
<p>Consent agreements – such as the terms and conditions you agree to when you sign up for a service, such as Gmail or Messenger – waive rights that individuals might otherwise enjoy under privacy laws. In its response to the Cambridge Analytica debacle, <a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/03/suspending-cambridge-analytica/">Facebook claims</a> that users consented to the use of their data. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/consent-and-ethics-in-facebooks-emotional-manipulation-study-28596">Consent and ethics in Facebook's emotional manipulation study</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But these broad user consent agreements are not policed strictly enough in Australia. It’s known as “bad consent” when protective features are absent from these agreements. By contrast, a “good consent” agreement should be simple, safe and precautionary by default. That means it should be clear about its terms and give users the ability to enforce them, should not be variable, and should allow users to revoke consent at any time. </p>
<p>New laws introduced by the EU – the <a href="https://www.eugdpr.org/">General Data Protection Regulation</a> – which come into effect on May 25, are an example of how countries can protect their citizens’ data offshore. </p>
<h2>Major parties don’t want change</h2>
<p>Privacy Commissioner Tim Pilgrim <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/22/australias-political-parties-defend-privacy-exemption-in-wake-of-cambridge-analytica">said today in The Guardian</a> that the political exemption should be reconsidered. In the past, independents and minor party representatives have objected to the exemption, as well as the weakness of Australian privacy laws more generally. In 2001, <a href="http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2001/HCA/63">the High Court said</a> that there should be a right to sue for privacy breach.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-big-data-may-be-having-a-big-effect-on-how-our-politics-plays-out-72577">Why big data may be having a big effect on how our politics plays out</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But both Liberal and Labor are often <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/mar/22/australias-political-parties-defend-privacy-exemption-in-wake-of-cambridge-analytica">in tacit agreement to do nothing substantial</a> about privacy rights. They have not taken up the debates around the collapse of IT security, nor the increase in abuse of the “consent” model, the dangers of so called “open data”, or the threats from artificial intelligence, Big Data, and metadata retention. </p>
<p>One might speculate that this is because they share a vested interest in making use of voter data for the purpose of campaigning and governing. It’s now time for a new discussion about the rules around privacy and politics in Australia – one in which the privacy interests of individuals are front and centre.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93717/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Vaile is Board or Committee Member of Internet Australia, The Australian Privacy Foundation, the Association of Social and Market Research Organisation, and various professional, government and civil society and policy organizations. </span></em></p>It’s time for a new discussion about the rules around privacy and politics in Australia – one in which the privacy interests of individuals are front and centre.David Vaile, Teacher of cyberspace law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/853662017-10-17T23:55:36Z2017-10-17T23:55:36ZSolving the political ad problem with transparency<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190479/original/file-20171016-30962-1tqe36c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The American people used to get more information in common.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/closeup-group-commuters-reading-newspaper-train-151781759">sirtravelalot/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Almost all the content and advertising on the internet is <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/12/technology/how-facebook-ads-work.html">customized to each viewer</a>. The impact of this kind of content distribution on the 2016 election is still being explored. But, we can certainly say that the campaigns used this to say <a href="http://www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-won-trump-election-not-just-fake-news/">different things to different people</a> without having to worry about accuracy.</p>
<p>Addressing this problem by <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/google-facebook-and-twitter-scramble-to-hold-washington-at-bay">having people screen ads</a> is impractical and <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/trevor-potter-the-political-reality-of-citizens-united/">legally questionable</a>. A more straightforward solution based on <a href="https://newrepublic.com/article/88005/full-disclosure">current disclosure laws</a> has been <a href="https://www.axios.com/mccains-latest-surprise-regulate-facebook-2498450082.html">proposed in Congress</a>: The <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/technology/356065-senate-dems-want-curb-election-interference-with-new-bill">Honest Ads Act</a> would increase transparency by having digital media platforms <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/facebook-political-ad-disclosure_us_59c55ca2e4b0cdc773313503">post all ads</a> on a web page that everyone can view.</p>
<p>Before the web, big data and machine learning, political groups and campaigns reached their target audiences through mass media – newspapers, radio and television. Most everyone saw the same news reports and advertisements at the same times. As a result, the public shared a common base of knowledge about what political candidates were saying. No longer.</p>
<p>Today, digital media platforms track what users look at, search for, post, like and share to micro-target their users with ads they are likely to want to see. Compared to the scattershot approach taken on TV and other mass media, micro-targeted ads are amazingly effective. This is great for the media platforms, who get to make money from advertisers. It is great for consumers, who can trade their time viewing ads they are likely to want to see in exchange for “free” use of the internet. And, it is great for businesses that get to reach their target audiences for less money.</p>
<p>Recent news makes it clear, however, that micro-targeting is not so great for democracy. Micro-targeted advertisements, which are at the heart of the most successful <a href="http://sites.google.com/site/net205apples/google-business-model">internet business model</a>, allow political groups and others – including <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/technology/facebook-russian-ads.html">foreign countries</a> – to tell Americans tens of thousands of <a href="http://www.wired.com/2016/11/facebook-won-trump-election-not-just-fake-news/">different stories</a>. Each of these messages is customized for people who are <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/business/facebook-advertising-anti-semitism.html">predisposed to agree</a> with it, and unavailable for anyone else to check or verify. The net result is to <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/is-america-headed-for-a-new-kind-of-civil-war">increase divisiveness</a> and disputes about “<a href="http://theconversation.com/why-do-we-fall-for-fake-news-69829">fake news</a>” as the public’s common set of knowledge is divided into increasingly smaller pieces.</p>
<h2>A look to the 19th century</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=723&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=723&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=723&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190447/original/file-20171016-30971-1myls4w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=909&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The official portrait of President William Henry Harrison.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:James_Reid_Lambdin_-_William_Henry_Harrison_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg">James Reid Lambdin/White House</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The problem of politicians telling different stories to different people is not new. In 1840, William Henry Harrison’s presidential candidacy essentially <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/williamhenryharrison/gailcollins/9780805091182/">invented the modern campaign</a>. He was the first to hold mass rallies, make personal appearances and introduce catchy slogans. He realized that he could tailor his messages to different audiences, and even provide different segments of the population with different sets of facts. The people on the receiving end of his speeches would never know their counterparts in a different region were being told something different. </p>
<p>The solution: The traveling press corps made sure that everyone had access to all of a candidate’s speeches. Harrison and other candidates could, of course, still say whatever they want to any audience, but the press coverage made self-contradiction a political liability. Today’s solution is the same: Increase transparency. In the age of micro-targeted internet ads we need to make all ads available to all the people.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ngjUkPbGwAg?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An example of ‘fake news’ in the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During the 2004 presidential election, transparency was essential to eliminating fake news. An ad campaign by a group called “<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngjUkPbGwAg">Swift Boat Veterans for Truth</a>” was created to discredit Democratic candidate John Kerry. In part because the public at large saw the ads, the effort was unmasked as inaccurate propaganda about <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080610022244/http://www.newsweek.com/id/55728/output/print">Kerry’s service in the Vietnam War</a>. By increasing the transparency around online ads, <a href="http://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript">we the people</a> can hold all politicians, parties and interest groups accountable, and return to reasonable debates based on a common set of facts.</p>
<h2>Current solutions aren’t enough</h2>
<p>The recent news that Russia tried to manipulate the election with micro-targeted ads on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/21/technology/facebook-russian-ads.html">Facebook</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/10/09/google-uncovers-russian-bought-ads-on-youtube-gmail-and-other-platforms/">Google</a> and <a href="http://blog.twitter.com/official/en_us/topics/company/2017/Update-Russian-Interference-in-2016--Election-Bots-and-Misinformation.html">Twitter</a>, and that advertisers can micro-target ads based on <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/business/facebook-advertising-anti-semitism.html">racist keywords</a>, has led to calls for online media platforms to be more socially responsible and <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/06/congress-facebook-twitter-political-ads-243505">accountable</a>.</p>
<p>The tech companies’ <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-10/google-facebook-and-twitter-scramble-to-hold-washington-at-bay">planned response</a> involves hiring more people to review ads and keywords – a form of censorship. Even if each ad and its related targeting keywords could be vetted by the media companies, there are <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/trevor-potter-the-political-reality-of-citizens-united/">free speech issues</a> involved in rejecting ads. Furthermore, motivated and clever advertisers are likely to find ways to reach their <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/technology/facebook-russia-ads-.html">intended demographics</a>. </p>
<h2>Taking the lesson from history</h2>
<p>As in 1840, Americans need help restoring the transparency that has been lost with changes in how campaigns reach the electorate. If media platforms were required to post all advertisements in an online archive on their websites for at least one year, then consumer groups, political watchdogs, the press and in fact any citizen would be able to monitor the ads being run.</p>
<p>In addition, at least for political ads, the keywords used to target the audience and the group paying for it could be included along with the ad itself. Keeping all ads on a known and publicly available page would make the ads available for all to see for a reasonable amount of time. Advertisers would be held accountable because everyone would be able to see the ad and it would not go away quickly. If we, as citizens, don’t take it upon ourselves to check the archive page, then shame on us.</p>
<p>It won’t solve all of the problems of micro-targeting. Advertisers and campaigns will doubtless try to circumvent whatever rules are in place. The goal is not perfect accountability, but a step toward it. Just as campaign laws require paid political ads on mass media to <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.11">identify their funding sources</a>, there should be a trail of accountability for advertisements on digital media platforms. This system is technically feasible and could be set up immediately. It is likely to reduce misinformation and curtail foreign manipulation at the same time, and could help the internet live up to its hope of improving – not hindering – democracy.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This article was updated on October 19, 2017, to reflect and incorporate the fact that a specific bill was proposed in Congress to enact rules along the lines this article proposes.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85366/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Seth Goldstein has received support from NSF, Darpa, ONR, Altera, Xilinx, Intel and Microsoft. He is a member of the ACM and IEEE and a past member of ISAT.</span></em></p>Micro-targeted online advertising has destroyed how Americans share experiences and a common knowledge base. The fix for this societal and political problem is as simple now as it was in 1840.Seth Copen Goldstein, Associate Professor of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/835012017-09-12T19:42:11Z2017-09-12T19:42:11ZMarriage vote: how advocacy ads exploit our emotions in divisive debates<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184835/original/file-20170906-9843-1qcwy8p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The 'Yes' campaign's first ad focused on the evidential flaws with the 'No' campaign's ads.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The same-sex marriage debate in Australia was always bound to be divisive and emotive. And as a public vote on whether it should be legalised nears, the role of advocacy advertisements will become increasingly important in swaying the opinion of undecided voters. </p>
<p>While polls show <a href="http://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/955846060138299394/1024/10/scaletowidth#tl-955846060138299394;1043138249">strong support</a> for marriage equality at present, the history of widespread advocacy campaigns shows that the “No” campaign has many unfair advantages – especially when it uses ads to make its point.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/revealed-who-supports-marriage-equality-in-australia-and-who-doesnt-82988">Revealed: who supports marriage equality in Australia – and who doesn’t</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>The No campaign’s natural advantage</h2>
<p>The efficacy of both the “Yes” and “No” arguments can be related to Mill’s <a href="http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Mill/MillHarm.pdf">“harm principle”</a>: one side believes the only harm being done is to those who happen to be attracted to those of the same sex; the other side believes harm is being done to religious and moral values. How they present these ideas will dramatically affect the outcome of the vote.</p>
<p>However, the No campaign has distinct advantages when it advertises. These primarily relate to status-quo bias. <a href="https://www.princeton.edu/%7Ekahneman/docs/Publications/Anomalies_DK_JLK_RHT_1991.pdf">Research shows</a> that political actors often have an aversion to change, and will disproportionately focus on perceived losses relative to perceived gains.</p>
<p>As such, advocacy campaigns that focus on losses tend to do better than those focused on gains. On same-sex marriage, the gain is clear for some (such as those seeking to marry, and the rights this affords), but it is more reliant on more abstract notions like “fairness” for those not directly affected.</p>
<p>To that end, a campaign that suggests same-sex marriage will <a href="https://theconversation.com/without-proper-protections-same-sex-marriage-will-discriminate-against-conscientious-objectors-83348">somehow erode many people’s rights</a> (or those of their children) has an advantage over a campaign focused on establishing new rights.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/without-proper-protections-same-sex-marriage-will-discriminate-against-conscientious-objectors-83348">Without proper protections, same-sex marriage will discriminate against conscientious objectors</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>The No campaign’s second advantage comes with its ability to muddy the waters and associate as many negatives with same-sex marriage as it can. Again, this uses status-quo bias: when in doubt, people typically vote no. </p>
<p>And “facts” play an almost negligible role in changing voter behaviour in the face of strong emotionally based arguments.</p>
<h2>The ad campaigns so far</h2>
<p>So far, the ads for and against same-sex marriage have been intelligently made. </p>
<p>Polls have consistently shown that as the religiosity of Australians has declined, support for gay rights has grown. This bodes poorly for the No campaign, and it knows it. As a result, the <a href="https://acl.nationbuilder.com/marriage_coalition">Australian Christian Lobby</a> has focused more on the idea that same-sex marriage will lead to a sort of social, moral decline.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KqXLfp2sFHQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An Australian Christian Lobby ‘No’ ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Its ad cites no evidence for the assertions in it, but facts and evidence are less relevant in political advertising than many might like to think. </p>
<p>It’s a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-30/why-the-first-no-campaign-ad-will-work/8856722">smart ad</a>: it builds an emotional connection with traditional family-oriented voters, based on fear. Importantly, it sows doubt in those it connects with, which can be hard to overcome.</p>
<p>Another ad designed to air on Father’s Day was blocked by Free TV Australia, which considered the ad political. The group behind it, <a href="http://www.dads4kids.org.au">Dads4Kids</a>, neglected to attach an identification tag, which would have resolved the issue.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l1aTJtaT2uk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Dads4Kids’ Father’s Day ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The group <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/03/dads4kids-ad-is-dodgy-campaign-tactic-in-marriage-debate-says-lgbti-activist">denied</a> the ad was either political or related to the marriage vote. But two lines in the 60-second spot appear designed for the debate: first, “Your mummy and I are a perfect team”, then “I can’t wait to … watch as you put on a wedding ring”. These are presented as positive messages, but reinforce existing ideals of parenting as between men and women. </p>
<p>These kinds of ads may be used again, but are less effective for the No campaign than the more overtly stress- or fear-inducing ones.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313">Experts</a> assert there is no evidence to support the No campaign’s assertions. Its messaging is, in that strict sense, irrational. </p>
<p>But that’s the point: muddying the waters in advocacy advertising plays on the unquestioning parts of the brain. Fear of the unknown and unknowable can be baseless – even silly – but it works. </p>
<p>When <a href="http://www.equalitycampaign.org.au">Yes Equality</a> launched its first TV ad, it was defensive, and focused on the evidence problems with the No ads.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i_iQuyzS6Wk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A Yes campaign ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/marriage-equality-campaign-launches-tv-ad-starring-ian-thorpe/news-story/a9f221b5d05d86fc241b173f75dda18a">latest ad</a> from the Yes campaign doesn’t give viewers the time to build any connection: there are too many faces, too much going on.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pl5pEmg4N_0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Another ad from the Yes campaign.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Debunking and clearing up confusion is important, as is mobilising voters, but the most successful campaigns focus more on establishing emotive-empathetic links with viewers than rational ones</p>
<p>Such campaigns usually rely on stress or anger. The US campaign against “Hillarycare” did it in 1993; when unions fought the WorkChoices legislation, they did it too; and the mining industry did it in its battle against the Rudd-Gillard mining taxes in 2010.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P5y3b9iVgGs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A union anti-Workchoices ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Giving the same-sex marriage debate relatable, likeable faces, and building emotional narratives, will be critical to countering the fear-based charge of the “No” ads. This is especially the case if the campaign maintains or increases its advertising spending.</p>
<h2>Lessons from Ireland</h2>
<p>Ireland’s 2015 referendum on same-sex marriage offers compelling – if not completely analogous – examples of what might happen in Australia.</p>
<p>Ireland <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/23/gay-marriage-ireland-yes-vote">voted in favour</a> of same-sex marriage, 62% to 38%. This was well down from pre-referendum opinion polls, where support was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/majority-irish-voters-support-lgbt-marriage-gay-graham-norton">as high as 76%</a>. Polling shows Australians’ support for marriage equality is similarly strong — <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6707-australian-views-on-gay-marriage-february-march-2016-201607191635">as high as 76%</a> – and it’s likely a charged debate will bring a similar drop.</p>
<p>However, there is a key difference. In Ireland, political ads are <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/enacted/en/html">banned on broadcast media</a> – so, no TV spots, nor radio. Australia has no such prohibition.</p>
<p>The complexity of an issue like same-sex marriage (or almost any political issue) is not well distilled into 30-second audio-visual pitches. Instead of through ads, the Irish debate largely took place on panel discussions, in parliament, and in public and private places around the country.</p>
<p>The closest ads Ireland ran to Australia’s TV spots were internet-based, such as those made by the <a href="http://ionainstitute.eu">Iona Institute</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaRK-0W5HQI&feature=youtu.be">Mothers and Fathers Matter</a>. These pushed the idea that both a mother and a father were necessary or ideal for bringing up children.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q6HD8KLQBvA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Mothers and Fathers Matter campaign ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zaRK-0W5HQI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Iona Institute ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Otherwise, the ads were made for billboards, newspapers and the internet, but their impact was likely to be lower than if TV spots were used. Internet ads generally have lower saturation and reach fewer demographics (including older voters, who are <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-22/election-2016-vote-compass-same-sex-marriage/7520478">more likely to resist same-sex marriage</a>).</p>
<p>And static, image-based ads don’t have the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00913367.1991.10673202">same efficacy as TV ones</a> – especially in terms of emotive reactions, which lend themselves more to irrational associations.</p>
<h2>What to expect as the vote nears</h2>
<p>Ireland’s experience shows that even where ads are kept from broadcast media, there can be a dramatic drop in support for same-sex marriage after a prolonged, divisive debate. But throwing well-made TV and radio ads into the mix may well prove a critical distinction between Australia and Ireland.</p>
<p>The No campaign will continue to draw on as many negative associations as possible, especially related to children. Its campaign has been significantly dependent on fear, and shows no indication of changing.</p>
<p>Once the vote is properly underway, the intensity of the ads is likely to increase. Without an adequate counter from the Yes campaign – especially one offering more emotionally compelling messages – the advantages of the No campaign are likely to narrow the polling gap significantly.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83501/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Rennie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The history of widespread advocacy campaigns shows that the ‘No’ campaign has many unfair advantages in the marriage equality debate.George Rennie, Lecturer in American Politics and Lobbying Strategies, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/764952017-06-21T04:40:58Z2017-06-21T04:40:58ZMost expensive race in House history turns out nearly 58 percent of Georgia district’s voters<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/174843/original/file-20170621-30211-1ggitxa.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Republican candidate for Georgia's Sixth District congressional seat Karen Handel declares victory with her husband Steve.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/John Bazemore</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I’m a political science professor living in Georgia’s Sixth House district, where <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/georgia-congressional-runoff-ossoff-handel">Republican Karen Handel</a> eked out a victory of nearly four points over Democrat John Ossoff in a special House election on June 20.</p>
<p>And although I have made a career out of observing and teaching others about politics, I’m just relieved the race is over. The word “ubiquitous” doesn’t begin to describe the special election’s presence. </p>
<p>For months, the district has been flooded with every kind of campaign advocacy imaginable: phone calls, mailers, television commercials, lawn signs and ads showing up on every online platform you can think of. Most households have been receiving multiple phone calls every day and multiple home visits from canvassers every week, and everyone has been exposed to more advertising than they can ever remember seeing. I counted 31 pieces of campaign-related mail in just one week. Some residents are even getting campaign texts on their cellphones.</p>
<p>This is because of the astonishing amount of <a href="https://www.issueone.org/money-behind-expensive-u-s-house-race-history/">money spent</a> on the race. A typical competitive House race sees a total of about US$5 million spent, and the previous record for the most expensive House race ever was $20 million. During the Georgia Sixth special election, the two candidates together spent about $33 million, and outside groups added about another $27 million on top of that. That nearly $60 million total represents almost $100 for every man, woman and child who lives in the district. It is the most expensive U.S. House race in the country’s history.</p>
<p>What’s interesting is what all this money and activity did and didn’t do. </p>
<h2>The effects of advertising</h2>
<p>There is very little evidence that the campaigns helped many people decide whom to vote for. At the start of the race in April, just 5 percent of voters were undecided, and the candidates’ numbers barely moved since. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia%27s_6th_congressional_district_special_election,_2017#Polling">dozen polls</a> taken over the course of the runoff all showed Ossoff and Handel’s support hovering within a few tight percentage points over the entire two months. </p>
<p>Consider the results of the first round of voting. Ossoff <a href="http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/67317/Web02-state/#/">easily won</a> that round with 48.1 percent to Handel’s 19.8 percent, but those totals are misleading. More important is that all the Democratic candidates put together received 49 percent of the vote (the four other Democrats on the ballot split less than 1 percent between them) and Republicans received 51 percent (there were <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia%27s_6th_Congressional_District_special_election,_2017">10 on the ballot</a>; four were serious contenders). Those results presaged the tight contest that occurred once the race narrowed to just two contenders.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the massive amount of attention devoted to the race ensured everyone in the district knew about the election, when it would take place, who the candidates were and what party each one represented. This high level of information translated into very high turnout. Normally, turnout in House special elections is about 10 percent. The <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia%27s_9th_Congressional_District_elections,_2012">last time we had one in Georgia</a> was in 2010, when Nathan Deal resigned his House seat to run for governor. That time, 52,000 people voted in the first round, and 40,000 in the second round, out of about 450,000 registered voters.</p>
<p>This time around, 192,000 people voted in the first round, and 259,000 voted in the second round, with roughly the same number of registered voters. That’s an increase in turnout of more than five times the number of voters from 2010 and about 58 percent of registered voters, <a href="http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/20/georgia-6th-how-the-rain-could-affect-turnout-for-ossoff-handel/">despite concerns</a> over rain on Election Day.</p>
<p>Little movement on voter preferences and a surge in turnout are what political scientists would expect for a race with exceptionally high spending. <a href="http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.2307/2132225">Elections research shows</a> that campaigns typically don’t get a lot of people to <a href="https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/files/2014/06/HillygusJackman.pdf">change their minds</a> about whom to vote for. But they do provide <a href="http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/1922_reg.html">voters with information</a> about the upcoming election, which in turn can <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=BZg4CTbPBYIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+spectacle+of+us+senate+campaigns&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpn-Ch7srUAhVEET4KHXZ6BNAQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=the%20spectacle%20of%20us%20senate%20campaigns&f=false">drive up</a> <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912908319575">turnout</a>. </p>
<h2>What’s the big picture?</h2>
<p>Another factor that put this race on the map – and the reason so much money was spent on it in the first place – is that many people view it as a proxy for the failure or success of President Donald Trump’s administration. People have strong feelings about Trump, one way or the other, and many of them channeled those feelings into advocacy for Ossoff or Handel.</p>
<p>So what does the race mean for politics going forward? </p>
<p>As a clue about what might happen in 2018, it might not mean as much as some people want to believe. Handel’s close victory might give the Republican Party a morale boost. What’s really important is the broader pattern of how Republican candidates are doing compared to how Trump did in those same districts in 2016. </p>
<p>Democrats have some reason to be optimistic. </p>
<p>In the special election that took place in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/south-carolina-house-special-election">South Carolina’s Fifth District</a> on the same day as Georgia’s, Republican Ralph Norman received 51.1 percent of the vote in a district where Trump got 57.3 percent just five months earlier.</p>
<p>In April, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/kansas-house-special-election-district-4">Kansas Republican Ron Estes</a> received 52.5 percent of the vote in a district where Trump got 60.4 percent. </p>
<p>In May, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/montana-house-special-election">Montana Republican Greg Gianforte</a> got 49.9 percent where Trump had won 56 percent. </p>
<p>And in a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/nyregion/special-legislative-election-christine-pellegrino.html">New York state legislative district</a> where Trump won 60 percent of the vote, a Republican candidate polled only 42 percent last month.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the Georgia Sixth District special election bucks that trend. The 10 Republicans collectively beat Trump’s district vote share of 48.3 percent by two points in the first round of voting, and Handel beat it by four points in the runoff. </p>
<p>More immediately, Handel’s victory might give a small boost to Trump’s legislative agenda in Congress. A Democratic victory would have furthered the narrative of Trump’s national unpopularity and convinced some wavering moderate Republicans that they could safely vote against the party on close votes. However, Handel’s victory will probably head that off, allowing Trump and congressional GOP leaders to convince their rank and file to support the party’s program.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76495/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeffrey Lazarus does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>But there’s little evidence the high spending changed any minds, says a political scientist who lives in the district.Jeffrey Lazarus, Associate Professor of Political Science, Georgia State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/605692016-06-08T20:10:13Z2016-06-08T20:10:13ZLobbying 101: how interest groups influence politicians and the public to get what they want<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125647/original/image-20160608-15052-1417cif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Lobby groups have a lot to lose or gain in elections.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-396459388/stock-photo-colourful-reflection-of-canberra-s-new-parliament-building-in-a-fountain-pond-at-sunset.html?src=OuXTE_aWS93FkPSEJBvRdA-1-0">Taras Vyshnya/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>We see their spokespeople quoted in the papers and their ads on TV, but beyond that we know very little about how Australia’s lobby groups get what they want. This is the first article in our series on the strategies, political alignment and policy platforms of eight <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/australian-lobby-groups">lobby groups that can influence this election</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Over the past 20 years, lobbying activities in Australia have expanded dramatically. Following the United States’ lead, where a <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/how-corporate-lobbyists-conquered-american-democracy/390822/">radical shift in ideology</a> in the 1970s led to a re-evaluation of the way corporations view their role in society, the notion of corporate <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Supercapitalism.html?id=IPmWgoKQTgUC">“civic duty”</a> has been replaced by a belief that governments and the public are <a href="http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/">fair game</a> for special interests.</p>
<p>Now, lobbying in Australia is a <a href="http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Library/ReferenceShare/Documents/lobbying.pdf">multi-billion dollar industry</a> which employs a sophisticated strategy to win public opinion and political favours for its clients or members. </p>
<h2>Lobbying and the ‘revolving door’</h2>
<p>Who is able to lobby, and the methods they can employ in doing so, is determined by a <a href="http://lobbyists.pmc.gov.au/conduct_code.cfm">patchwork of laws</a> designed to add some transparency to an otherwise murky process. There are, therefore, “official lobbyists” – individuals and firms for whom the frequency and import of their work requires them to <a href="http://lobbyists.pmc.gov.au/who_register.cfm">register themselves</a>. </p>
<p>Any interested party can engage the services of these professionals for a fee, but if a board member, union official, or other “concerned citizen” wants to meet with a political decision-maker, and perhaps even discuss a policy or infrastructure proposal over lunch, there’s little – <a href="http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/names-of-13-people-who-attended-lobbying-lunch-with-minister-ros-bates-revealed/story-e6freoof-1226576200972">other than a vigilant press, perhaps</a> – to effectively prevent them from doing so.</p>
<p>So, political lobbying is not limited to those officially sanctioned as “registered lobbyists”. Its scope includes anyone who wants something and is willing to twist a government official’s arm to get it.</p>
<p>Lobbying consists of a range of <a href="http://amr.aom.org/content/24/4/825.short">strategies</a> designed to co-opt or realign policy. Broadly, these strategies attempt to influence one of two key targets: government (<a href="https://theconversation.com/to-clean-up-the-financial-system-we-need-to-watch-the-watchers-38359">including regulators</a>) and the public. </p>
<p>In order to lobby politicians and regulators, lobbyists use <a href="http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au">campaign donations</a>, letter writing campaigns, and try to build personal relationships. Lobbyists can also rely on morally dubious quid-pro-quo arrangements, such as jobs for friendly politicians at retirement.</p>
<p>This can lead to potential conflicts of interest. In the US, around <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/books/review/this-town-by-mark-leibovich.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&">50% of ex-legislators become lobbyists</a>. Although not to the same extent, this also <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com.au/10-former-howard-government-politicians-who-moved-into-the-lobbying-industry-2014-3">occurs in Australia</a>.</p>
<p>Alternatively, lobbying the public relies on advertisements, op-ed pieces, <a href="http://www.bca.com.au/publications/the-cost-of-dropping-out-research-reports">commissioned research</a>, protests, and <a href="http://www.clubsaustralia.com.au/advocacy/press/news-detail/2015/03/11/clubs-up-pressure-on-government-support-for-wilkie-s-licence-to-punt">press releases</a> to try and shift public opinion on a given issue.</p>
<p>Whether politicians or the public are targeted depends on their amenability. When dealing with Labor, for example, the <a href="http://www.actu.org.au">Australian Council of Trade Unions</a> will focus its efforts on meeting privately with Labor, and attacking the Liberal Party publicly. <a href="http://www.actu.org.au/actu-media/videos/vimeo?id=128768636">Demonstrations</a> and <a href="http://www.actu.org.au/actu-media/videos/vimeo?id=114299330">ad campaigns</a> are used to try and influence public opinion to that end, and played a key role in the 2007 election in attacking WorkChoices.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1WvMTAci5nU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The ACTU’s 2007 anti-WorkChoices campaign.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Similarly, business – which is more likely to have a combative relationship with Labor – will engage with the Liberal and (to a lesser extent) Nationals parties more positively, and engage in <a href="https://www.propertycouncil.com.au/Web/Our_Industry/Our_contribution/Web/Industry_Leadership/PropertyStory/Property_Story.aspx">“public information”</a> campaigns to exert political pressure on Labor, such as the <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/the-man-who-killed-rudds-mining-tax/news-story/851da8b4dc89dc8f1d34b236eba50737">mining tax campaign in 2010</a>.</p>
<p>But these relationships make it harder for Labor to create policy at odds with union interests; and it’s similarly difficult for the Liberal Party to put “big business” off-side. Doing so for either party alienates key allies, and the question of whether a policy is actually “good” for the country can become a secondary consideration.</p>
<h2>The many faces of lobbying</h2>
<p>While lobbying in Australia represents a wide range of interest groups, it has a high cost associated. This can mean that, to the extent that lobbying is effective, it disproportionately benefits big businesses and a wealthy elite who can afford to <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/LobbyingRules">“pay the piper”</a>. </p>
<p>And if an issue isn’t adopted by unions – many important debates aren’t – then the associated public debate can be one-sided.</p>
<p>Businesses are generally well represented. Peak bodies, such as the <a href="http://www.bca.com.au">Business Council of Australia</a> and the <a href="https://www.propertycouncil.com.au">Property Council</a>, ensure that even small and mid-sized businesses have a say. Further, the largest think-tanks, such as the <a href="http://www.ipa.org.au">Institute of Public Affairs</a>, ensure that the ideology of business – low taxes and few regulations – is well reflected in public discourse.</p>
<p>By stark contrast, “grassroots” organisations such as <a href="https://www.getup.org.au">GetUp!</a> or the <a href="https://www.acfonline.org.au">Australian Conservation Foundation</a>, even when broadly representative of the views of a large proportion of the population, tend to have far fewer resources at their disposal for public relations or campaign financing. To that end, their ability to effectively lobby is severely undermined.</p>
<p>The problem is one of diffusion. Compare, for example, a lobby group that represents very few very-high-income members (be they individuals or businesses) with one that represents many of average or low incomes. If a lobby group thinks a policy might threaten its members’ livelihood, it is far easier to draw large sums of money from wealthy few because, proportionately, the risk-reward ratio is much more in their favour. </p>
<p>When a policy is at odds with well-resourced interests, chipping in a few million towards a campaign is far easier to do, as many mining magnates did in 2010.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/CREUOpaVYJQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Association of Mining and Exploration Companies’ anti-mining tax ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During that same time, despite claiming a million members, GetUp! was relatively under-resourced financially, and dramatically outspent by organisations such as the <a href="http://www.minerals.org.au">Minerals Council</a>. As such, organisations like GetUp! are often forced to resort to social media, and hope that, predicated on humour, outrage or luck, their videos will go “viral”.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M9ZFDpuiFUs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">This January 2015 GetUp! ad explained the possible implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Election 2016</h2>
<p>Elections unfailingly draw the attention and best efforts of lobby groups, which have a lot to gain or lose depending on which party takes power.</p>
<p>Labor has the unions on-side, which have been strangely quiet in the wake of the royal commission. But big business is disproportionately in the Coalition’s camp.</p>
<p>The Property Council, along with the state and federal <a href="https://reia.asn.au">Real Estate Institutes</a>, clearly view the mooted changes to negative gearing laws as a threat. To that end, they’re pushing the message that removing negative gearing will <a href="https://negativegearingaffectsyou.com">devastate housing, one of Australia’s biggest industries</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/B60xXZpPgbQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The Property Council of Australia’s Don’t Play with Property ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>(The imagery of this ad is a strange choice – is this an admission that Australia’s property market is indeed a house of cards?)</p>
<p>But the dark horse in this race is the banking industry. When Opposition Leader Bill Shorten signalled a royal commission into banks, the immediate response by the industry was to threaten a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/it-would-cost-them-seats-banks-refuse-to-rule-out-mining-taxstyle-campaign-against-royal-commission-20160412-go4ay8.html">“mining tax-style campaign”</a>. </p>
<p>Labor is still licking its wounds from the 2010 mining industry assault and is keen to avoid a repeat from a similarly well-resourced foe. But it knows the banking industry would be risking a lot in the battle for public sentiment, should it decide to wage a public relations war on Labor. </p>
<h2>The proper role of lobbyists</h2>
<p>Lobbying plays a critical role in Australia’s representative democracy. The sheer plurality of voices in a country of 23 million ensures that Australia needs a system to filter and convey the views of the many to the few who represent them. To that end, the role of the lobbyist is critical.</p>
<p>However, the dangers of lobbying are great. The potential for regulatory and government capture by special interests, as well as the ability of powerful concentrated interests to drown out other voices in public debate, presents significant challenges for Australian democracy. </p>
<p>Consequentially, Australia would benefit from changing to disclosure rules on campaign financing. We should also re-evaluate the permissibility of the “revolving door” of politicians and the lobbying industry. More pressingly, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/liberal-donations-scandal-highlights-icacs-important-work-20160324-gnqer9.html">in the wake of recent scandals around political donations</a>, Australia may need a national corruption watchdog along the lines of NSW’s <a href="https://www.icac.nsw.gov.au">Independent Commission Against Corruption</a>. </p>
<p>Not all of these challenges can or should be tackled legislatively, but the potential of lobbying to undermine democratic ideals means reform is needed. The sooner the better.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Stay tuned for the rest of <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/australian-lobby-groups">The Conversation’s Australian lobby groups series</a>, which will profile individual interest groups.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60569/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Rennie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Lobbying in Australia is a multi-billion dollar industry which employs a sophisticated strategy to win public opinion and political favours for its clients or members. Here’s how.George Rennie, PhD Candidate, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/604442016-06-08T20:09:54Z2016-06-08T20:09:54ZPatient advocate or doctors’ union? How the AMA flexes its political muscle<p><em>We see their spokespeople quoted in the papers and their ads on TV, but beyond that we know very little about how Australia’s lobby groups get what they want. This series shines a light on the strategies, political alignment and policy platforms of eight <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/australian-lobby-groups">lobby groups that can influence this election</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Late-19th-century American journalist Ambrose Bierce <a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/ambrosebie107323.html">once defined politics</a> as “a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles”. Health politics today is similarly <a href="http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2755925">riddled with self-serving interest groups</a> that masquerade as something else. The Australian Medical Association (AMA) is a key player in this strife. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125643/original/image-20160608-15041-iy9j95.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125643/original/image-20160608-15041-iy9j95.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125643/original/image-20160608-15041-iy9j95.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125643/original/image-20160608-15041-iy9j95.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125643/original/image-20160608-15041-iy9j95.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125643/original/image-20160608-15041-iy9j95.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125643/original/image-20160608-15041-iy9j95.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125643/original/image-20160608-15041-iy9j95.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=758&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Who it represents</h2>
<p>The AMA is sometimes referred to as the “doctor’s union”, in reference to its muscle and zeal in protecting its members’ interests, if not its formal industrial status. Salaried medical practitioners employed in public hospitals, for example, are represented industrially by the <a href="http://www.asmof.org.au/">Australian Salaried Medical Officers’ Federation</a>. <a href="https://www.health.qld.gov.au/employment/work-for-us/clinical/medical/vmo/default.asp">Visiting medical officers</a> are represented by state-based associations that often have close links to the state branch of the AMA.</p>
<p>The AMA was <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/people/458421?c=people">formed in 1962</a> with the merger of the Australian branches of the British Medical Association. It <a href="http://www.ausae.org.au/Resources/Documents/PD%20AMA%20-%20CHIEF%20EXECUTIVE%20OFFICER.pdf">now has around</a> 30,000 members, about <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/judith-sloan/the-ama-is-a-platform-for-selfinterested-grandstanders/news-story/9d9c02070121d180f2841599ae2e2ec6?memtype=anonymous">30% of the medical profession</a>. This is a significant decline from its heyday 50 years ago when almost all medical practitioners were members (if only to receive its academic publication, the <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/">Medical Journal of Australia</a>).</p>
<p>The AMA is strongly committed to ensuring it represents – and is seen to represent – a “medical voice”. The spokesperson for the AMA is typically its president, with the non-medical chief executive, quaintly titled the secretary-general, rarely seen in the public domain. </p>
<h2>Key competitors</h2>
<p>The AMA is the most diverse of the medical profession’s advocacy groups. This is both its strength and weakness. Although some causes unify medical practitioners – preserving their autonomy, for example – the interests of general practitioners and specialists do not always align. This was most recently seen when the private pathologists <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-13/malcolm-turnbull-announces-pathology-deal-over-funding-dispute/7414058">negotiated a deal with government</a> which potentially advantages the pathology companies at the expense of general practices.</p>
<p>More cohesive medical groups (such the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and others that represent surgeons, obstetricians, and so on) may be potential allies with the AMA but may also pursue a distinct policy position. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125650/original/image-20160608-15028-edw9ee.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125650/original/image-20160608-15028-edw9ee.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125650/original/image-20160608-15028-edw9ee.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=768&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125650/original/image-20160608-15028-edw9ee.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=768&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125650/original/image-20160608-15028-edw9ee.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=768&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125650/original/image-20160608-15028-edw9ee.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=966&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125650/original/image-20160608-15028-edw9ee.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=966&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125650/original/image-20160608-15028-edw9ee.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=966&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pathology Australia’s Don’t Kill Bulk Bill campaign (screenshot).</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Because these speciality groups have a narrower barrow to push, they can often respond to policy changes more quickly than the AMA. </p>
<p>The pathology companies’ interest groups, <a href="http://www.pathologyaustralia.com.au/">Pathology Australia</a> and the <a href="https://www.rcpa.edu.au/Library/News-and-Media-Releases/Media-Releases/Docs/Coalition-s-plan-for-access-to-affordable-patholog">Royal College of Pathologists of Australia</a>, for instance, were quicker than the AMA to mobilise against proposals in the 2016 budget to remove the pathology bulk billing incentive with a <a href="http://www.pathologyaustralia.com.au/2016/04/12/australians-unite-against-cuts-to-bulk-billing/">Don’t Kill Bulk Bill campaign</a>, which included petitions and posters in pathology collection centres. </p>
<h2>Contemporary campaign</h2>
<p>The 2015 budget announced an extension of the freeze of Medicare rebates for another two years, until 2020. Labor introduced a seven-month deferral of indexation in 2013 but this was converted into a freeze on indexation in the infamous 2014 Abbott-Hockey budget. </p>
<p>If the freeze continues, the <a href="http://insidestory.org.au/chill-winds-for-doctors-and-their-patients">gap between practice costs and revenue</a> will increase, and bulk billing rates are <a href="https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2015/202/6/cost-freezing-general-practice">likely to fall</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125649/original/image-20160608-15021-1s9tkq3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125649/original/image-20160608-15021-1s9tkq3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/125649/original/image-20160608-15021-1s9tkq3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=845&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125649/original/image-20160608-15021-1s9tkq3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=845&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125649/original/image-20160608-15021-1s9tkq3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=845&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125649/original/image-20160608-15021-1s9tkq3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1062&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125649/original/image-20160608-15021-1s9tkq3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1062&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/125649/original/image-20160608-15021-1s9tkq3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1062&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The AMA’s No Medicare Freeze campaign poster.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This makes the current election an important one for patients and the medical profession. The AMA has opposed the freeze, pointing out the potential adverse impact on patient access if out-of-pocket costs were to increase. Here we see a nice coincidence of interests between the medical profession and patients, as the freeze cuts first into medical practice revenue and only impacts patients if doctors increase their fees. </p>
<p>Labor has announced it will <a href="http://www.100positivepolicies.org.au/protecting_medicare">end the freeze</a> funded by rolling back company tax changes. The Greens have also announced a <a href="http://www.doctorportal.com.au/greens-pledge-billions-for-health/">rollback of the freeze</a>.</p>
<p>Only <a href="http://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Quarterly-Medicare-Statistics">30% of specialist consultations</a> are bulk billed compared to 83% of general practice consultations. The impact of the freeze is therefore greater on general practitioners, who would have to introduce more widespread billing, compared to specialists who would only need to adjust fees already charged. </p>
<p>The Royal Australian College of General Practice has also <a href="http://www.medicalrepublic.com.au/recurring-freeze-undeniable-implications/">argued stridently against the freeze</a> and run television ads on this issue.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-Mw_t71yESo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The RACGPs anti-freeze TV ad campaign warns patients will defer important tests because of the cost.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Political alignment</h2>
<p>The AMA is conservative in orientation. Two of its former presidents entered party politics as Liberals: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Glasson_(surgeon)">Bill Glasson</a> ran twice for the Liberals in Queensland and <a href="https://www.awm.gov.au/about/bio/director/">Brendan Nelson</a> was a one-time leader of the Liberal Party. </p>
<p>This does not mean the AMA always gives Coalition governments a free ride. The immediate past president of the AMA, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Owler">Brian Owler</a> was vociferous in leading AMA opposition to the 2014 budget cuts to health care, the proposed introduction of a <a href="https://theconversation.com/medicare-co-payment-a-case-study-in-policy-implosion-38311">co-payment</a>, and <a href="https://nacchocommunique.com/2016/02/08/naccho-aboriginal-health-news-alert-ama-says-stop-the-cuts-time-for-strong-investment-in-health/">funding cuts to Indigenous health care</a>. He also voiced concerns about the medical treatment of asylum seekers. </p>
<p>These “progressive views” were <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/ama-seeks-to-close-political-wounds-with-election-of-michael-gannon-as-president/news-story/48ec0bb87d182639d62eeffa4ad3a9e2">cited as an issue</a> by newly elected AMA President Michael Gannon, who is looking to “build bridges” with what he expects will be a returned Turnbull government. </p>
<p>If Labor were to win the election, an AMA president who proudly proclaimed his friendship with Liberal politicians may not find building bridges so easy.</p>
<h2>Fifty years of opposing</h2>
<p>As one would expect of a conservative organisation, the AMA has attempted to stem the tide of change in health care, particularly when it comes to doctors’ rights to set their fees without government controls. </p>
<p>The history the AMA released for the <a href="https://ama.com.au/sites/default/files/documents/a_history_of_the_ama.pdf">50th anniversary of its foundation</a> outlines a mixed history of struggles against government. It had some victories negotiating with Liberal governments up to the 1970s. But the election of Gough Whitlam in 1972 brought the AMA up against a Labor government that was not prepared to compromise on its plan to introduce universal health insurance. </p>
<p>The AMA opposed a universal health system because it threatened the financial autonomy of doctors. The AMA showed it was prepared to get down and dirty, <a href="http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/23765893?q&versionId=43104213">pulling out all stops</a> to undermine the government and vilify ministers in an effort to stop the Labor scheme. </p>
<hr>
<blockquote>
<p>_<strong>Further reading:</strong> _<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ama-and-medicare-a-love-hate-relationship-36346">The AMA and Medicare: a love-hate relationship</a> </p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>The AMA was partially successful in the Fraser years in having the Whitlam scheme unwound, but the election of the Hawke Labor government ushered in a revamped Medicare that is with us still.</p>
<p>But by positioning itself so firmly against universal health insurance, the AMA lost its ability to influence federal Labor ministers. </p>
<h2>Influence today</h2>
<p>Traditionally, once doctors finished their training, they started practising in independent, small businesses. Although this is changing with the growth of corporate chain practices (such as <a href="http://www.primaryhealthcare.com.au/IRM/content/default.aspx">Primary Health Care Ltd</a>), medical practitioners are generally very independently minded, which makes them hard to corral.</p>
<p>This, coupled with the divisions in the profession and the fact that only about one-third of medical practitioners are members of the AMA, reduces the AMA’s bargaining power because it cannot necessarily deliver on agreements it reaches. The AMA is therefore better able to argue a position about stopping change than negotiating a positive vision or, indeed, an acceptable compromise.</p>
<p>But the AMA cannot be written off. It is still a very powerful lobbyist. Although strong governments, with majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, can see off challenges from the AMA, this is not the contemporary state of federal politics in Australia. And it’s unlikely to be so in the next few years. </p>
<p>Crossbenchers still listen to the AMA, which gives it a position of influence. It is well-resourced and staffed with people who generally know the lobbying ropes.</p>
<p>The AMA is adept at dressing up its concerns in high-sounding rhetoric about the public interest. It is also skillful at concealing its weakness in terms of representing a united medical profession. For these reasons, it has been able to maintain its position as the foremost medical lobby group, and will probably continue to do so.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Read the other instalments in The Conversation’s Australian lobby groups series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/australian-lobby-groups">here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60444/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Duckett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The AMA has campaigned heavily on the Medicare rebate freeze, pointing out its potential impact on patient access if out-of-pocket costs were to increase.Stephen Duckett, Director, Health Program, Grattan InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/578802016-05-18T03:46:55Z2016-05-18T03:46:55ZElection explainer: what are the rules governing political advertising?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/122691/original/image-20160516-15899-1m3vzg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There has been debate in recent times around placing caps or limits on some forms of political advertising.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/why-bill-shorten-stars-in-both-sides-election-ads-59076">Negative and positive advertisements</a> were quick to hit the airwaves in the early days of the election campaign. With many more weeks to come, one might be tricked into thinking the major parties can’t keep going at this pace. They must run out of money and get tired of the ads themselves, right? </p>
<p>Political advertising in federal campaigns is governed by a set of laws. Here are some of them.</p>
<h2>What are the rules around party-political advertising?</h2>
<p>The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) and the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) govern political advertising at a federal level. The AEC covers the legalities of political advertising, such as authorisation. ACMA covers the broadcasting side. </p>
<p>They do appear to overlap. However, the AEC would take precedence over ACMA. The <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/">AEC legislation</a>, the Commonwealth Electoral Act, is intended to ensure a fair and free election outcome.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/bsa1992214/">Broadcasting Services Act</a> covers actual broadcast rules. This includes identifying who authorised the advertisement, enforcing blackout rules, and recording details of political advertising and even polling and telemarketing calls.</p>
<p>The blackout period starts from the end of the Wednesday before polling day (in 2016, this will be June 29) and runs until the close of the polls on polling day, or 6PM on July 2. This means that you won’t see any ads in traditional media – TV, radio, newspapers and magazines. But anything online is exempt, so expect YouTube and social media sites to be full of messaging. </p>
<h2>Are there any rules about the content of ads?</h2>
<p>Both pieces of legislation cover content. The Broadcasting Services Act ensures the authorisation is inserted at the end of every advertisement, or in the right place for print advertisements. </p>
<p>However, the AEC legislation covers the big issues of concern of political advertising. This includes truth in advertising, misleading and deceptive conduct, and defamation of other people.</p>
<p>While there have been <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9697/97rp13">parliamentary research papers</a> and <a href="https://jade.io/article/66896/section/140043?asv=citation_browser">High Court cases</a>, the broad consensus right now is that truth in advertising can be legislated for, but it is incredibly problematic to enforce and prosecute. </p>
<p>Misleading and deceptive conduct in ads is enforced only when it concerns promoting informal or incorrect voting. </p>
<p>Defamation is left up to common law. However, even here it is rarely actioned due to the length of proceedings. And the high-profile nature of cases means it can do more harm than good for those involved.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vEZ8QhOKXeA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">All ads contain an ‘authorised by’ line.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Who pays for these ads?</h2>
<p>Advertisements are not taxpayer-funded, though paying for campaign expenses such as advertising is one of the purposes of funding given to political parties after elections, provided they gain 4% of primary votes in the division or Senate race they contest. </p>
<p>This is calculated on a formula of roughly A$2.60 per first-preference vote, although actual figures for this election have not yet been released. </p>
<p>In the <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/Publications/Reports_On_Federal_Electoral_Events/2013/fad/funding.htm#payments">2013 election this amounted</a> to $23.8 million for the Liberals, $20.7 million for Labor, $5.5 million for the Greens, $3.1 for the Nationals, $2.3 million for the Palmer United Party, $1 million for the Liberal Democrats and $642,000 for Nick Xenophon.</p>
<p>How parties decide to spend this money is up to them. However, they must put in annual returns to the AEC. It usually takes nearly a year to work out how much has been spent on election advertising, and where exactly that money came from. </p>
<p>Campaign finance is in need of reform. There are many questions on what returns stakeholders expect to receive from parties and candidates in return for funding election campaigns.</p>
<h2>Are networks obliged to give major parties equal time?</h2>
<p>No. But they are required to ensure all parties that were present in the last parliament before the current election period have a reasonable opportunity to broadcast election matter. </p>
<p>Networks can screen an extra minute of non-program matter (ads) between 6PM and midnight provided they are political ads. So, during the election campaign, ad breaks may be a little bit longer.</p>
<p>However, the ABC as the national broadcaster does allow the government and official opposition 31 minutes and 30 seconds of free time on ABC1 TV and ABC local radio. This is split into 18 minutes (12 90-second policy announcements) and 13 minutes and 30 seconds for the final pitch. </p>
<p>Minor parties can qualify for free time based on their level of electoral support at the last election and if they are contesting more than 10% of seats at the current election. This time is only two 90-second spots on ABC1 TV and two 90-second spots on ABC local radio for policy announcements. They are not given airtime for the final pitch. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Yb6iWiJXDkU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Networks are required to ensure represented parties have a reasonable opportunity to broadcast election matter.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Do we need limits?</h2>
<p>There has been debate in recent times around placing caps or limits on some forms of political advertising – especially negative advertising – due to the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1300/J199v02n01_04">perceived harm caused to democratic institutions</a> and political engagement by this type of advertising. </p>
<p>There needs to be some limits on negative advertising, such as making up only 30% of total airtime of all political advertising. Political advertising should also be restricted to adult viewing hours to minimise potential negative attitudes and harm to children. </p>
<p>Advertising on the internet should also be part of the blackout period. Voters need peace and quiet to consider each party’s policy promises.</p>
<p>Finally, Free TV Australia should report on the name of the ad, the number of times it was screened, and the markets it was screened in to enable a more transparent and accountable way of measuring the funding and use of political advertising.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/57880/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Hughes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>What are some of the legalities and issues around political advertising in federal campaigns?Andrew Hughes, Lecturer, Research School of Management, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/413272015-05-18T10:17:33Z2015-05-18T10:17:33ZHow many ways can politicians ‘lie’? How a class led to a ‘truth’ report card for the 2016 election<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81606/original/image-20150513-2483-y5nte.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How often do politicians lie? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=EEIqf_pCfDs6JUL0McquJw&searchterm=politicians%20lie&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=256701232">People image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>I regularly teach a course called <em>The Sociology of Television & Media</em> in which my students and I critically explore newscasts, entertainment programming and (both commercial and political) advertising. The theme that I use as a touchstone throughout the class is: What happens when, as a society, we begin to mix fantasy and reality together in mass media? </p>
<p>We discuss how a range of troubling outcomes emerge for a public that has difficulty telling truth from fiction. <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/horkheimer/">Max Horkheimer</a>, a German-Jewish sociologist, argued that this is part of what led to the rise of Nazism in Germany. </p>
<p>Once we lose our ability to detect lies, we become vulnerable to demagogues.</p>
<h2>Six categories of rhetoric</h2>
<p>About halfway through the semester, I have students deconstruct political ads, and we discuss practical resources for navigating the web of truths, half-truths and outright lies that proliferate unhindered during each election cycle.</p>
<p>One resource that I offer is <a href="http://politifact.org">Politifact.org’s</a> Truth-o-Meter. Students fact-check politicians’ statements to determine how much, if any, truth is contained therein (they actually won a <a href="http://www.pulitzer.org/">Pulitzer Prize</a> for their work fact-checking the 2008 election).</p>
<p>The first, and perhaps most important, takeaway from their work is that modern political statements cannot accurately be rated as simply “true” or “false.” So sophisticated has the art of mixing truth and lies become that the scale <a href="http://politifact.org">Politifact</a> currently uses includes six separate categories of political rhetoric: true, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false and “pants on fire” (for statements that aren’t just false but also completely ludicrous - and yet still stated as truth). </p>
<p>In essence, while there is still but one way to tell the truth, there are now at least five times as many acceptable ways to lie.</p>
<p>For example, John Boehner’s May 3 2015 statement on <em>Meet The Press</em> that <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/03/john-boehner/john-boehner-we-spend-more-money-antacids-we-do-po/">“we spend more money on antacids than we do on politics”</a> is rated simply “false.” Fact-checking reveals that in the US, <a href="http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2014/10/overall-spending-inches-up-in-2014-megadonors-equip-outside-groups-to-capture-a-bigger-share-of-the-pie/">we spent somewhere between US$3 billion and US$7 billion on elections in 2014</a> (depending on what money streams you include), while we spent less than $2 billion on antacids in the same year. </p>
<p>Boehner’s team was apparently trying to compare <em>global</em> sales of antacids (including all seven billion people on the planet) to <em>US</em> spending on elections (about 320 million of us) - a false comparison.</p>
<p>On April 23 2015, Hillary Clinton provided a good illustration of a statement that rates as a “half truth.” When addressing the Women in the World Summit in New York City, Clinton asserted that the US ranks <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/05/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-us-ranks-just-65th-world-gend/">“65th out of 142 nations”</a> when it comes to equal pay for women. The statistic comes from the <a href="http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/introduction-2/">World Economic Forum’s 2014 Global Gender Gap Report</a>. </p>
<p>However, the primary measure generated by this report ranks the US 20th in gender equity. The ranking of 65th is taken from a subcategory in the report that relies on a survey of perceptions of executives rather than hard numbers. So, while it is technically true, it may actually be overstating the severity of the gender pay gap comparison.</p>
<h2>Whom can we trust?</h2>
<p>The second takeaway, though it may not be much of a surprise, is that there are_ no _politicians in this country that exclusively tell the truth. Every single one, to a greater or lesser extent, spins, bends, twists or breaks the truth.</p>
<p>Perhaps this is the price of power in our modern democracy, but we should find it at least a little troubling.</p>
<p>So where does this leave us? Well, knowing that every one of our politicians lies, the most important question, in my mind, becomes: Who is most often telling the truth and who is lying to us repeatedly in order to gain our support? </p>
<p>In other words, whom can and whom can’t we trust?</p>
<p>With this question in mind, I had my students add up the raw numbers for 25 major politicians (based on <a href="http://politifact.org">Politifact’s</a> fact-checking over the past eight years) and write the results up on the board in rank order from most to least honest based on the data. The results were intriguing.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81607/original/image-20150513-2494-c9gjo9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=488&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Can we tell when politicians are lying to us? The short answer is no.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=h2pDbuXIcO8mUjxjIshkDQ&searchterm=lies%20&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=140770462">Lies image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While the prototype point system was not particularly sophisticated (two points for each true statement, one point for each mostly true statement, zero for half-truths, etc.), the numbers revealed that many well-known politicians were abusing the truth far more than they were embracing it.</p>
<p>When I asked the class what they thought of the results, one student raised her hand and replied, “I’m not shocked.” Many of the others immediately nodded their heads in agreement. </p>
<p>I wondered if we’ve become so accustomed to the bending and breaking of the truth that we no longer expect truth from our leaders. Now we’re teaching the next generation not to expect it either.</p>
<p>After seeing these preliminary results, I was hooked.</p>
<h2>Generating ‘honesty’ report cards</h2>
<p>I quickly returned to my office and began running the numbers on a total of 42 politicians (Republicans and Democrats) with the greatest name recognition and included every current presidential hopeful who has expressed some level of interest in running in the 2016 presidential election, to boot.</p>
<p>As of May 5 2015, only 37 of the 42 politicians included have made 10 or more statements that have been fact checked in Politifact’s database, so I immediately set aside the other five politicians as having too small of a statement sample to consider in the results (the possibility for error being too significant). </p>
<p>I decided to grade our politicians the same way that I would grade my students if their assignment was to tell the truth. </p>
<p>They receive an A+ (100) if they actually tell the whole truth, a B (85) if what they say is mostly true, a C (75) if they tell a half-truth, a D (65) if what they say is mostly false, an F (55) if it is plainly a lie, and no credit (0) if they fail to take the assignment seriously at all (“pants on fire”). </p>
<p>Each politician’s <em>Honesty Score</em> is then calculated based on the overall percentage of their statements that are true, false or somewhere in between. The results are as follows (hold on to your socks): </p>
<p><em>0 A’s, 3 B’s, 22 C’s, 9 D’s, and 3 F’s.</em></p>
<p>As of May 2015, according to a synthesis of <a href="http://politifact.org">Politifact’s</a> fact-checking of actual statements over the past eight years:</p>
<p><strong>The two most honest 2016 presidential hopefuls are:</strong></p>
<p>Republican: Jeb Bush [B-]</p>
<p>Democrat: Hillary Clinton [B-]</p>
<p><strong>The two least honest 2016 presidential hopefuls:</strong></p>
<p>Republican: Ted Cruz [D-]</p>
<p>Democrat: Lincoln Chafee [C]</p>
<p><strong>The only three politicians to receive failing grades:</strong></p>
<p>Michele Bachmann [F], Herman Cain [F], Donald Trump [F]</p>
<p><strong>Our three most powerful current representatives:</strong></p>
<p>Barack Obama [C+], John Boehner [C-], Mitch McConnell [C]</p>
<p><strong>The most honest politician in the US:</strong></p>
<p>Cory Booker [B-]</p>
<p>You can take a look at the results for yourself:</p>
<p><strong>2016 Presidential Hopefuls</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=629&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=629&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=629&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=790&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=790&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81247/original/image-20150511-19566-1gcdnl9.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=790&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Notable Democrats</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81246/original/image-20150511-19537-iq7fkx.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Notable Republicans</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=715&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=715&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/81245/original/image-20150511-19521-1rkaw1p.gif?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=715&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Keep in mind, this kind of data tells us nothing about the views the candidates hold, or their policies, or even what kind of a leader they may ultimately turn out to be. </p>
<p>It does, however, tell us something important about how often they tell the truth to the public, and that should be something we hold them accountable for. It will be interesting to see how these same political leaders fare six months or a year from now when the races have really started to heat up, particularly those who look like they may be viable presidential candidates. </p>
<p>As teachers, caught up in our own subject matter, we easily forget that our students are hungry to apply what they’re being taught in our classes to something meaningful in their own lives.</p>
<p>It is our obligation to offer each generation a sense of social responsibility, hope for the future and the practical tools that will allow them to build it for themselves.</p>
<p>Something like a yearly Honesty Report Card might serve us well at this point in our democracy’s evolution. At the very least, let’s use this idea as a starting point for some kind of political unity in this country. </p>
<p>Whether you are liberal or conservative, can’t we at least agree that our politicians should start telling us the truth?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41327/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ellis Jones does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>There may be only one way to tell the truth, but there are at least five ways to “lie.” And our politicians seem to be the master of this art. A scholar decides to teach this to his students.Ellis Jones, Assistant Professor of Sociology, College of the Holy CrossLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.