Thursday, October 31, 1974
3A
University Daily Kansan
Advertising part of campaigning
BY RICHARD PAXSON Contributing Writer
In February 1963, just after the off-year elections in the United States, Nikita Khrushchev was asked by a fellow Muscovite to explain American elections.
The Soviet Premier replied, "A sort of show takes place. During such shows, demonstrations are demanded for votes for the elephant while the other party asks to vote for the donkey. Political advertising in the United States has much the quality of theater advertising. Television in America can drive you crazy from morning to night. You get snowed under by speeches from the elephant and the donkey."
The electronic media have become increasingly important recipients of campaign expenditures. In presidential election years, campaign costs have risen from $140 million in 1952 to nearly$ 400 million in 1972. Federal Communications Commission estimates place the cost of television advertising in the 1972 campaign at around $75 million.
During this election year, the controversy has spread to Kansas over three commercials that have been used by incumbent Republican Sen. Bob Dole to meet a strong challenge from Democratic Rep. Bill Roy.
Radio and television political advertising has been the subject of almost constant controversy since the first political commercials, which were short radio talks provided by the Republican National Committee in 1928 on behalf of presidential aspirant Herbert Hoover.
One of the commercials shows a poster featuring a photograph of Dole. The poster is being splattered by handfills of mud. Another commercial, which was shown for about 10 days earlier this month, shows the same poster been colored with a crayon.
Dole defends the commercials by saying his opponent had distorted Dole's positions on agricultural, social welfare and government spending issues in Roy's political advertising.
Roy's campaign officials complained that the two commercials were themselves mudslinging. Dole stopped showing the commercials in response to what he said was pressure from some of his supporters.
The third commercial, which is still being shown, stars conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz. Goldwater says that while he doesn't know Roy personally, Goldwater's son, who is a fellow member of the House with Roy, has described Roy as extremely liberal.
Roy has said privately that Goldwater's son has denied making that statement. Several photographs that have recently been made public show Roy and Sen. Goldwater shaking hands. Some observers say this proves Goldwater does know Roy after all.
These disputes can be put into a historical
perspective rather easily, because few major campaigns conducted since television became a truly mass medium in the 1950s have been without similar controversies.
Eisenhower's 1952 campaign was the first to make effective use of television. Two of his commercials caused a short-lived furor, which would be minor by later standards. Eisenhower was charged with wrapping himself in the flag when he delivered a televised campaign message while holding his right hand on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia's Independence Hall.
Another commercial showed two soldiers in a foxhole during the Korean War. Just after they discuss the frustrations of the war under Truman, one of them is killed. The other jumps from the foxhole and makes a mindless attack on the enemy. He also is killed. The announcer reminded viewers to "Vote Republican."
The Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborn advertising agency produced the spot commercials. One reporter already could see the potential for packaging and selling candidates like consumer goods. That critic, Marya Mannes, wrote:
Hail to BBD & O
That told the Nation how to go
It managed by advertisement
To sell us a new President
Eisenhower hits the spot
One full General, that's a lot
Feeling sluggish, feeling sick
Take a dose of Ike and Dick
Philip Morris, Lucky Strike,
Alka Saltzer, Like Ike
Nelson Rockefeller's 1966 bid for a third term as New York's governor is often mentioned as a model of creativity and campaign strategy, but it, too, was troubled by charges of misleading advertising.
Rockefeller and the state of New York rarely appeared in the spots. One typical
See CAMPAIGN Next Page
William Robert (Bill) Roy
Dole, Roy records...
From Preceding Page
against the bill when the final conference report came to the Senate on July 30.
"While Dole is clear in his support of the farmer, he is inconsistent in his view of the political stance necessary for the farmer's advancement," the Nader report said.
The National Farmers Union (NFU) judges members of Congress on their voting records. On the basis of 21 selected votes in the House and 17 in the Senate in 1973, Roy voted right 21 times and Dole 9 times according to the NFU's positions.
On economic issues, Dole has supported the position of business through his votes. He voted to reduce the minimum wage in 1972 and voted to cut a minimum wage increase in 1973.
Roy voted in 1973 to limit oil industry windfall profits. He sided with Dole when he voted to reject an increase in the minimum wage in 1972.
American labor's interest group, the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education (COPE) rates Dole as having voted in their favor 17 per cent time in all his years in Washington and Roy 77 per cent of the time.
The question of ideological labels of the two candidates has arisen in this campaign. One way of answering that question is to look at the ratings of the interest groups for each side—conservative and liberal.
The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a liberal organization, and the
Americans for Constitutional Action (ACA), a conservative group, rate congressmen according to selected votes. If a member of Congress votes "right" all the time, he receives a rating of 100 from the respective organization.
For the three sessions of Congress in 1971, 1972 and 1973, the ADA gave Dole ratings of 4,0 and 10 and Roy ratings of 78,44 and 68. ACA gave Dole ratings of 71,84 and 82, and Roy ratings of 19,33 and 21.
A final way of looking at voting records is the voter participation average. For his 13 years in Congress, (not counting 1974), Dole voted 94.9 percent of the time. For his three years in the House, Roy voted 88.7 percent of the time.
Javits ahead in New York race
By JOHN CRICHTON
Whenever a national election is coming up, there is sure to be an interesting race in New York for a seat in Washington.
In 1970, James Buckley, Conservative party nominee, defeated liberal incumbent Republican Charles Goodell and millionaire Democrat Richard Ottinger for New York's Senate seat. Buckley's success was due in part to dissatisfied Republicans who didn't like Goodell's liberalism. The dissatisfaction went all the way to the White House and, as a result, Buckley got Republican money and quiet support that wouldn't normally have gone to a Conservative party candidate.
In this fall's election things are different, but just as interesting. Democratic nominee Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general and transplanted Texan, is challenging incumbent Republican Jacob Javits for his Senate seat. Javits, almost as liberal as Goodell, has all the Republican support Goodell lacked and then some. The Liberal party of New York has chosen to endorse Javits over Clark, and even Sen.
Buckley, with a teeth-clenched smile, has endorsed his fellow Republican.
Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern.
Clark is new to New York politics and his style is different from anything that New York politics has ever seen. He doesn't
The only other major candidate, Barbara Keating of the Conservative party, is, to put it mildly, out in the cold.
When Clark said that he wasn't accepting any contributions over $100, and that "My campaign can only go as far as the people want it to go," New York Democrats sat down and sighed. But Clark's incessant determination came through, and since the
Javits didn't do the politically popular thing and denounce Nixon every time he was in front of a television camera, and some think that will hurt him.
accept contributions over $100, he suffers out loud about morality and he identifies with people other than wealthy New Yorkers. Old-time New York Democrats were dumbfounded over Clark's success in the primary, and when asked about him, they call Clark their "candidate of conscience."
Clark's campaign has a likeness to George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign, and the similarities have turned some skeptical voters away. For instance, Clark called for a feasibility study of free bus and subway service in New York City. When Clark proposes things like that, Javits has a heyday. Javitis accuses him of irresponsibility, foolishness and lack of knowledge.
Although Javits is considered a sure winner in November, Clark isn't trailing by much. His platform has attracted many of those New Yorkers who supported Robert
Sept. 10 primary he has received $177,000 from
5,782 contributors.
Clark's contribution stand also has helped him attract quite a few voters who are upset that Javits accepted $15,000 from Vice President-designate Nelson Rockefeller. Clark has accused Javitis of "failure of moral leadership" because Javits has raised so much money from so few persons. The attacks have put Javits on the defensive, and he recently said he was considering returning Rockefeller's gift.
However, unlike McGovern, Clark refuses to reverse his stand on an issue for a few more votes. When he was in conservative upstate New York, local supporters urged Clark to "talk around" or modify his ultra liberal stand. Clark replied that he had spent a long time thinking about the issues and that "I can't changin'."
Clark and Javits both have strong positions on labor and education, two areas that can mean a lot of votes in New York. The majority of those, however, are supposed to go to Javits, because he has the endorsement of labor officials.
Clark has tried, with some success, to carve out some of Javits' Jewish votes. On a number of occasions Clark had had much
See CLARK Next Page