.jpg)
Jack Benny used to say that “kids say the darndest things.”
But every time there’s an election, we can honestly say that “political ads say the darndest things.”
A seemingly innocuous vote or comment by a campaign becomes a negative TV ad or campaign mailer.
Forget about the issues and whether a controversial vote was cast for a good reason. It’s all about whether a candidate is a scoundrel or not.
You might remember a few years ago when a group of state senators were targeted for re-election defeat for supporting an increase in the state’s gas tax?
They overrode a veto of the hike by then Gov. Pete Ricketts to raise the tax by 6 cents over four years, reasoning that some delayed highway construction projects would never get done without more revenue.
I think they were right. Nebraska ranks high for the condition of its highways, which, you gotta think, is because we invest in good roads. But the attack ads screamed that senators “raised your taxes.”
Negative ads work, political consultants will tell you, and they worked to defeat some of those legislators who committed the sin of raising taxes so we could have good roads.
This all brings me to a recent jury trial in Lincoln, in which $500,000 in damages were awarded to a Nebraska City woman who maintained that she was defamed by campaign ads during the 2020 election.
Janet Palmtag, who owns a Nebraska City real estate firm, was challenging the incumbent state senator, Julie Slama, in a race to represent the southeast corner of the state in the Nebraska Legislature. Both candidates were Republican — Palmtag, a long-time GOP contributor and volunteer, and Slama, a law student who had worked on a campaign of Ricketts, who appointed her to her seat in the Unicameral.
Palmtag objected when the State Republican Party (which endorsed Slama) sent out mailers that claimed the realtor had “broke the law” and “lost her license” to sell real estate.
Those claims, it turned out, were untrue. An agent employed by Palmtag had violated an Iowa real estate rule concerning transfer of an earnest deposit. So Palmtag, as his manager and because her agent was gravely ill, paid a $500 fine to settle the matter. She didn’t break the law, nor did she lose her real estate license (she voluntarily didn’t renew it a couple of years later).
It should be noted that when the negative ads first came out, Palmtag asked the then State GOP Executive Director Ryan Hamilton for a retraction, telling him the claims were false and malicious. But he reportedly laughed at the request, and stated that a second mailer, with similar attacks, was at the printers and was soon to be mailed.
These kind of hit pieces are what makes people hate politicians and politics. It makes reporters hate to cover campaigns because you have to wade through all the claims and counter claims.
In today’s world, a half-truth becomes a slimy political talking point. By the time a candidate tries to tell people “it’s not true,” it’s too late, the damage has been done — not only to a candidate’s reputation, but to the reputation of a business they might own.
What’s lost in a mudslinging contest is a discussion of the issues, and how each candidate might deal with an issue important to you.
What’s to be done? Increased spending on political campaigns is partly to blame. Legislative candidates raised more than $9 million by Election Day 2024 to spend on their races, and that doesn’t count independent expenditures by political parties and the “dark money” spent by anonymous donors. Less spending would translate into less of a chance to go negative.
In Europe, campaigning is limited to a few weeks before an election. Maybe shorter elections would help. We’re all worn out by the onslaught of TV ads by the time election day rolls around.
More debates would also help. Too many candidates skip debates, fearing they might say something stupid or otherwise help an opponent. Voters deserve to hear, in person, from candidates to see how they respond to questions (remember President Biden’s abysmal performance in a debate).
But some of this comes down to us. As long as negative campaigning and name calling works to tear down one candidate and elevate another, political consultants will keep pushing that button. Some voters are already rejecting mudslinging. A good example was the last race for mayor in Lincoln. One candidate kept insisting that the Capital City was a crime-ridden hell hole that required new leadership. The incumbent won handily because most voters rejected the smear.
One thing that might also help clean up campaigns is legal awards like the recent one.
Reportedly, the State GOP has some kind of insurance that will help pay for the half-million it owes Palmtag. Let’s hope awards like that also make campaigns think twice before going negative.
Paul Hammel has covered the state government and the state for decades. He is a retired senior contributor with the Nebraska Examiner. He was previously with the Omaha World-Herald, and Lincoln Journal Star.
