We get bombarded with ads every day, whether on the radio, on TV, via billboards, or the outside and inside of buses. There are ads for burgers, beer, medications, clothes, furniture, etc. This being an election year, there are also political ads. When you see an ad for beer or a burger, it's pretty clear who is producing the ad and what they're selling, whether it's the beer company selling beer, or a burger chain selling a burger. When it comes to political ads, that's a wholly different story.

There are some laws in place to help you - the consumer - make decisions about the information in the ad. If the ad is from the actual campaign, it will say so and will likely include the requisite "I am _________________ and I approve this message". For the other ads, however, things get considerably murkier. There is still the "__________ is responsible for the content of this ad", and possibly a website URL at the bottom.

That is important.

Most of the ads put out by PACs and other special-interest groups generally have the PAC's special interests at heart. While they may be pretending to be for or against a candidate or ballot initiative, it's really a matter of "follow the money". That's not always easy.

For a "case study", the state of MD is considering expanding gambling. There is a ballot initiative named "Question 7" which will allow voters to decide whether to allow it. Naturally, there have been ads for it and against it:

FOR:



AGAINST:



In both cases, they list the organizations putting out the ads:

For: VoteFor7.com

Against: FactsOn7.com

If you go to the sites, there's very little there to disclose who is really behind the ads. Doing a DNS lookup doesn't help, because in both cases the registration information is hidden behind a proxy (disclaimer - we do the same thing here with this blog). The only useful information is the treasurer that's listed. Looking into their names, they are both CPAs, which makes sense, since they are listed as treasurers for the PACs.

The Baltimore Sun - having considerably more access to robust search tools - has done some research, and determined that the anti-casino ads are being funded by an out-of-state casino company. That makes sense - they don't want new MD casinos taking away any of their business. One can only assume the pro-casino ads are being funded by the casino company that wants to build in MD.

This is a microcosm of what happens on a national scale. While Mitt Romney has put out some blatantly dishonest ads (like the Welfare-to-work ad), most of the grim anti-Obama ads have been produced by American Crossroads, which is the brainchild of Karl Rove. The requirements on ads by PACs like this are much looser. There are no limits to the funding, so this is a back-door way for the rich to buy an election without running afoul of SEC regulations.

Generally the goal of these ads is to create a sense of doubt and mistrust about a candidate, party, or product without being too specific. Sometimes they don't mention a candidate; sometimes they refer to specific legislation to give a feeling that government is being too intrusive into our lives without really going into the details of the specific legislation. They don't really expect the viewer to pick up their phone and call about the bill - they just want to put you into the mindset of voting for the "Small Government" candidate on election day.

Most people aren't going to bother looking into organizations behind every issue ad they see or hear. It takes time and diligence to make a note of the ad's creator, do the research, and try to understand what their motivation is and whether it's honestly portraying the subject of the ad. Often (like the Question 7 ads) it's extremely difficult to find ANY information on the ad's creator. Sometimes MediaMatters.org or Politifact will have some details, but that's generally reserved for the candidates' own ads. We're pretty much on our own.

So - buyer beware. Always watch these ads with a cynical eye, and take their content with a grain of salt. They are not doing you favors; they are not trying to inform you. Like a burger ad, they are trying to influence you because it is in their own financial self-interest.