This story involves two New Jersey state senators competing for the seat. Tom Malinowski, a Democrat, was targeted by attack advertising from the Republicans saying he is soft on pedophiles.
What I see is the negative political advertising is being used as a weapon by both sides. The politicians have become afraid that if they say anything controversial, it may be used against them in the future. A defense against this is to “hunt in a pack”. The politicians, to prevent attacks on individuals, refrain from deviating from the party line, thus the politicians become totally entrenched in the party’s ideology. This entrenchment stifles any original thinking, there are no debates about solutions to problems. Instead of opponents running positive campaigns about how they’re better than their opponent, they have to defend their position from attacks by their opponent.
I think we should learn from what the British have done with political advertising. They have a ban on ads on television for a week or two before an election. This counteracts the “money equals free speech” decision by the Supreme Court.
Quote from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_advertising
>> In the European Union, many countries do not permit paid-for TV or radio advertising for fear that wealthy groups will gain control of airtime, making fair play impossible and distorting the political debate in the process. <<
