Political Science

Negative campaigning or mudslinging has long been considered as part of American political culture. As a means to securing an electoral seat, it is considered the norm in politics and is as they say as American as Mississippi mud (Goodman, 1996, p. 13). As a result of excesses in candidate-centered campaign contributions, political advertising is often mean-spirited and foul, focusing not on candidates platform but on character. Because candidates are essentially engaged in a political contest, it might seem completely normal for them to discredit opponents through deceit, manipulation, and character assassination. I do not believe this should be the norm in a supposedly robust and mature two-party democracy like the United States. However unbelievable it might be, the US constitution could be regarded as the promoter of such negative political campaigning.

The Communication Act of 1934 and the 1976 Federal Election Campaign Act (as amended) resulted to the protection of corporate-sponsored political commercials insofar as restricting them would be, as the decision in Buckely v. Valeo indicates infringes on the right to free speech (1976). To counter the effects of negative political advertisements, public opinion is crucial. Interest groups are helpful in exposing and educating the American public on political messages, rather than personalities, of a particular party. In this manner, they help in providing alternative opinion especially to low-income and marginalized homes which are found to be most vulnerable and most inclined to believe in negative campaign (Chang, Park,  Shim, 1998).

Soft money also reduces candidate-centered politics because it funds for advocacy of the party as a whole. I think that party-centered politics reflects a democracy in its mature form, but the personality-centered campaign is without a doubt, the more sellable strategy to win a political contest. While candidate-centeredness of political campaigns may be inevitable, resorting to dirty tactics and deceitful propaganda does more harm than good in the long run. It weakens confidence in government and respect for elected leaders.