Videostyle in

Presidential
Campaigns
Recent Titles in the Praeger Series in Political Communication
Robert E. Denton, Jr., General Editor

Electronic Whistle-Stops: The Impact of the Internet on American Politics

Gary W. Selnow

Newspapers of Record in a Digital Age: From Hot Type to Hot Link

Shannon E. Martin and Kathleen A. Hansen

Campaign '96: A Functional Analysis of Acclaiming, Attacking, and Defending

William L. Benoit, Joseph R. Blaney, and P. M. Pier

Political Communication in America, Third Edition

Robert E. Denton, Jr., editor

Reelpolitik: Political Ideologies in '30s and'40s Films

Beverly Merrill Kelley, with John J. Pitney, Jr., Craig R. Smith, and Herbert E. Gooch III

World Opinion and the Emerging International Order

Frank Louis Rusciano, with Roberta Fiske-Rusciano, Bosah Ebo, Sigfredo Hernandez,
and John Crothers Pollock

Seeing Spots: A Functional Analysis of Presidential Television Advertisements,

1952-1996
William L. Benoit

Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices, Fourth Edition

Judith S. Trent and Robert V. Friedenberg

Losing Our Democratic Spirit: Congressional Deliberation and the Dictatorship

of Propaganda
Bill Granstaff

Communication Patterns in the Presidential Primaries: A Twentieth-Century

Perspective
Kathleen E. Kendall

With Malice Toward All?: The Media and Public Confidence in Democratic
Institutions
Patricia Moy and Michael Pfau

Making "Pictures in Our Heads": Government Advertising in Canada

Jonathan W. Rose
 Videostyle in
Presidential
Campaigns
Style and Content of Televised
Political Advertising
Lynda Lee Kaid and Anne Johnston

Praeger Series in Political Communication

PRAEGER we«Port,COT=
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Kaid, Lynda Lee.

Videostyle in presidential campaigns : style and content of televised political
advertising / Lynda Lee Kaid and Anne Johnston.
p. cm.—(Praeger series in political communication, ISSN 1062-5623)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-275-94071-3 (alk. paper)
1. Advertising, Political—United States. 2. Television in politics—United
States. I. Johnston, Anne. II. Title. III. Series.

JK2281.K26 2001
324.7 / 3 / 0973—dc21 00-023311

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available.

Copyright © 2001 by Lynda Lee Kaid and Anne Johnston

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be

reproduced, by any process or technique, without the
express written consent of the publisher.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 00-023311

ISBN: 0-275-94071-3
ISSN: 1062-5623

First published in 2001

Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881

An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Tpraeger.com.com

Printed in the United States of America

The paper used in this book complies with the

Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National
Information Standards Organization (Z39.48-1984).

10998765432
Contents

Series Foreword vii

Acknowledgments xi
Chapter 1 Presidential Campaign Advertising on Television 1
Chapter 2 Political Advertising Content and Effects 13
Chapter 3 Videostyle: Concept, Theory, and Method 25
Chapter 4 Advertising Content and Styles Across the Years 39
Chapter 5 Videostyle and Political Candidate Positioning 75
Chapter 6 Negative and Positive Videostyle 107
Chapter 7 Videostyle and Ethics in Televised Political
Advertising 135
Chapter 8 The Mediation of Videostyle: How Television
and Newspapers Cover Political Candidate
Advertising 147
VI Contents

Chapter 9 Videostyle in International Perspective 167

Chapter 10 Recurring Elements of Videostyle and the Future
of Presidential Candidate Presentation 179
Appendix: Videostyle Codesheet 193
References 203
Index 221
Series Foreword

Those of us from the discipline of communication studies have long

believed that communication is prior to all other fields of inquiry. In
several other forums I have argued that the essence of politics is "talk"
or h u m a n interaction. Such interaction may be formal or informal,
verbal or nonverbal, public or private, but it is always persuasive,
forcing us consciously or subconsciously to interpret, to evaluate, and
to act. Communication is the vehicle for h u m a n action.
From this perspective, it is not surprising that Aristotle recognized
the natural kinship of politics and communication in his writings Poli-
tics and Rhetoric. In the former, he established that humans are "political
beings [who] alone of the animals [are] furnished with the faculty of
language." In the latter, he began his systematic analysis of discourse
by proclaiming that "rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned
with the modes of persuasion." Thus, it was recognized over twenty-
three hundred years ago that politics and communication go hand in
hand because they are essential parts of human nature.
In 1981, Dan Nimmo and Keith Sanders proclaimed that political
communication was an emerging field. Although its origin, as noted,
dates back centuries, a "self-consciously cross-disciplinary" focus
vm Series Foreword

began in the late 1950s. Thousands of books and articles later, colleges
and universities offer a variety of graduate and undergraduate
coursework in the area in such diverse departments as communica-
tion, mass communication, journalism, political science, and sociol-
ogy. In Nimmo and Sanders's early assessment, the "key areas of
inquiry" included rhetorical analysis, propaganda analysis, attitude
change studies, voting studies, government and the news media,
functional and systems analyses, technological changes, media tech-
nologies, campaign techniques, and research techniques. In a survey
of the state of the field in 1983, the same authors and Lynda Kaid
found additional, more specific areas of concerns such as the presi-
dency, political pools, public opinion, debates, and advertising. Since
the first study, they have also noted a shift away from the rather
strict behavioral approach.
A decade later, Dan Nimmo and David Swanson argued that "politi-
cal communication has developed some identity as a more or less
distinct domain of scholarly work." The scope and concerns of the area
have further expanded to include critical theories and cultural studies.
Although there is no precise definition, method, or disciplinary home
of the area of inquiry, its primary domain comprises the role, processes,
and effects of communication within the context of politics broadly
defined.
In 1985, the editors of Political Communication Yearbook: 1984 noted
that "more things are happening in the study, teaching, and practice of
political communication than can be captured within the space limita-
tions of the relatively few publications available." In addition, they
argued that the backgrounds of "those involved in the field [are] so
varied and pluralist in outlook and a p p r o a c h , . . . it [is] a mistake to
adhere slavishly to any set format in shaping the content." More
recently, Swanson and Nimmo have called for "ways of overcoming the
u n h a p p y consequences of fragmentation within a framework that re-
spects, encourages, and benefits from diverse scholarly commitments,
agendas, and approaches."
In agreement with these assessments of the area and with gentle
encouragement, in 1988 Praeger established a series entitled "Praeger
Series in Political Communication." The series is open to all qualitative
and quantitative methodologies as well as contemporary and historical
studies. The key to characterizing the studies in the series is the focus
on communication variables or activities within a political context or
dimension. As of this writing, over seventy volumes have been p u b -
lished and numerous impressive works are forthcoming. Scholars from
the disciplines of communication, history, journalism, political science,
and sociology have participated in the series.
 Series Foreword IX

I am, without shame or modesty, a fan of the series. The joy of serving
as its editor is in participating in the dialogue of the field of political
communication and in reading the contributors' works. I invite you to
join me.

Robert E. Denton, Jr.

NOTES
1. See Robert E. Denton, Jr., The Symbolic Dimensions of the American Presidency
(Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1982); Robert E. Denton, Jr., and Gary
Woodward, Political Communication in America (New York: Praeger, 1985;
1990); Robert E. Denton, Jr., and Dan Hahn, Presidential Communication (New Y
Praeger, 1986); and Robert E. Denton, Jr., The Primetime Presidency of Ronald Re
(New York: Praeger, 1988).
2. Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle, trans. Ernest Barker (New York: Oxfo
University Press, 1970), p. 5.
3. Aristotle, Rhetoric, trans. W. Rhys Roberts (New York: Modern Library, 1954
p. 22.
4. Dan Nimmo and Keith Sanders, "Introduction: The Emergence of Political
Communication as a Field," in Handbook of Political Communication, eds. Dan Ni
and Keith Sanders (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981), pp. 11-36.
5. Ibid., p. 15.
6. Ibid., pp. 17-27.
7. Keith Sanders, Lynda Kaid, and Dan Nimmo, eds., Political Communicati
Yearbook: 1984 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University, 1985), pp. 283-308.
8. Dan Nimmo and David Swanson, "The Field of Political Communication:
Beyond the Voter Persuasion Paradigm," in New Directions in Political Communi
tions, eds. David Swanson and Dan Nimmo (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1990), p. 8
9. Sanders, Kaid, and Nimmo, Political Communication Yearbook: 1984, p
10. Ibid.
11. Nimmo and Swanson, "The Field of Political Communication," p. 11.
This page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgments

The videostyle concept evolved over a long time, and the research
necessary to carry out a project of this magnitude involved many
individuals. The authors are, first and foremost, indebted to the Politi-
cal Communication Center (PCC) at the University of Oklahoma for
access to the Julian P. Kanter Political Commerical Archive. This ar-
chive, with its unequalled collection of political spots, was a necessary
resource without which the project could not have been accomplished.
In addition, many individuals served as coders, helped with the video
compilations, and assisted with data analysis over the years, including
Robert Gobetz, Jane Garner, Lewis Mazanti, Karen Lane DeRosa, John
Hilbert, Julia Spiker, Lori Melton McKinnon, Mei-ling Yang, Steve
O'Geary, Holly Hart, Yang Lin, Mike Chanslor, Cindy Roper, John
Ballotti, Gary Noggle, Dolores Flamiano, and Robin Bisha. More than
any single individual, John Tedesco was a constant source of ideas and
constructive suggestions. Those who aided the international aspects of
the project are listed in Chapter 9.
In addition to the support of the PCC, the project also acknowledges
the financial assistance of the PEW Trust, Curtis Gans and the Commit-
tee for the Study of the American Electorate, and the Media Content
Xll Acknowledgments

Analysis Consortium (coordinated by Marion Just, Wellesley College).

A portion of the research for this book was supported by the National
Science Foundation under award #SBR-9729450 and SBR-9412529,
Lynda Lee Kaid, Principal Investigator. The Council for International
Exchange of Scholars (CIES), through the Fulbright Program, also pro-
vided assistance for the international phase of the project.
The Series Editor for Political Communication at Praeger/Green-
wood, Robert Denton, also deserves our appreciation; he was endlessly
patient and supportive.
Anne would like to thank Richard Cole, Dean of the School of Jour-
nalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina,
for his support and encouragement and the school's faculty as a whole
for providing a supportive and collegial environment.
Family members, other friends, and colleagues provided support and
encouragement, but none deserve more appreciation than Lynda's hus-
band, Clifford A. Jones, and Anne's son, Alex Wadsworth.
 1

Presidential Campaign
Advertising on Television

Television and politics have always been bedfellows. From the time
there were enough television sets available in the homes of the public,
politics has been a part of the content of daily television fare. It is not dif-
ficult to understand why politicians, officeholders and candidates alike,
have found television's near-universal penetration to be irresistible.
For presidential candidates the attraction developed quickly. When
television became widespread enough to justify usage (1952), candi-
dates recognized that advertising their message via television provided
several advantages over other communication modalities. First, televi-
sion reached larger numbers of voters simultaneously than any other
campaign channel. A message distributed via television would reach
millions each time it was broadcast, an audience that far exceeded the
reach of a single campaign speech or other organized event, a draw that
was unmatched by traditional print media. Second, the message was
under the complete control of the sponsoring candidate—no need to
worry about what a heckler in the crowd might shout in protest, no
concern about an opponent's response in a debate, no pesky journalist
to question or doubt the candidate's words. Third, not just the message
but also its form of presentation were controlled by the candidate and
2 Videostyle in Presidential Campaigns

media specialists. If the candidate was tired or looked haggard, record-

ing could be postponed until another day or, perhaps better yet,
makeup and lighting could hide most physical flaws. Postproduction
editing could eliminate slips and stutters in speech, as well as unflatter-
ing gestures or other nonverbal behaviors.
For a candidate who always aims to p u t the "best foot forward" rather
than "in the mouth," television advertising was truly an irresistible
format. This book takes as its thesis the notion that candidates develop
a way of presenting themselves to voters through the television me-
dium, a "videostyle." This method of self-presentation has three main
elements: a verbal or message component, a nonverbal component, and
a television production component. This book attempts to chronicle the
development of this use of television videostyle in presidential cam-
paigns and to describe and interpret the patterns that characterize
candidates and their styles.
The book is organized to provide an understanding of the role that
television advertising plays in presidential campaigns and elections.
This first chapter proceeds with a brief overview of the history of
television advertising in presidential campaigns and the regulatory
environment in which it exists in the United States. The second chapter
reviews earlier research on the content and style of television spots and
summarizes the evidence for the effects of political spots in election
campaigns. In the third chapter, we provide a discussion of the concept
of and theoretical underpinnings of videostyle, as well as a description
of the methods used for the analysis of videostyle in this book. The
remaining chapters draw on the data gathered and used to analyze
videostyle, outlining the trends in videostyle across the years as well as
the differences in videostyle attributable to candidate positioning, par-
tisan affiliation, and advertising valence (negative versus positive strat-
egies). Ethical aspects of videostyle, particularly as related to television
production techniques, and media coverage of political ads are consid-
ered in separate chapters. Additional chapters describe the application
of the videostyle concept to campaigns in other countries and summa-
rize trends in videostyle.

EARLY USE OF TELEVISION A D V E R T I S I N G I N

PRESIDENTIAL C A M P A I G N S

Until the twentieth century, presidential campaigns were conducted

without the use of electronic advertising on radio or television. While
it now seems difficult to imagine, candidates for the "highest office in
the land" had to rely on printed messages (newspaper advertising,
printed posters and billboards, brochures and handbills) and the even
 Presidential Campaign Advertising on Television 3

more old-fashioned public speaking, interpersonal communication,

and political party organizations to make sure their ideas reached the
voting public.
These earlier forms of political promotion, as well as the early uses of
radio campaigning, are described in detail by other scholars (Diamond
& Bates, 1992; Jamieson, 1984). However, it was the development of vi-
sual electronic media that transformed the way candidates communi-
cate with voters. The earliest visual medium (film) did not, of course,
have the kind of universal impact that was to be the purview of televi-
sion. Nonetheless, there exist early examples of the use of film for polit-
ical propaganda in the archival holdings of the Political
Communication Center at the University of Oklahoma, the world's
largest collection of radio and television commercials from political
campaigns. One of the most interesting of these early examples is "Hell
Bent for Election," the short animated feature produced for Franklin
Roosevelt's 1944 re-election campaign. Longer than a traditional spot,
the cartoon film was sponsored by a labor union and produced by
Charles (Chuck) Jones, the Warner Brothers' animator later famous for
the "Roadrunner" and other popular cartoon series. The promotional
film embodies many traditional symbolic devices to pit the "good" Roo-
sevelt and his "election express" train representing progress against the
"evil" Republicans with their sinister and outdated train/ideas. The
film also demonstrates many now-common devices for vilifying the op-
ponent in political advertising, including the film version of morphing.
Although film would continue for many years to be the production
medium of choice for much of television, in the 1950s the airwaves
became the delivery mechanism by which politicians presented their
messages to the voters. The first television commercials for political
candidates were aired during the 1950 election cycle in a state race
(Kaid, Haynes, & Rand, 1996). However, the 1952 presidential campaign
of Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first to use television spots as an
important aspect of the candidate's campaigning style.
Much of the credit for Eisenhower's strategic use of campaign spots
goes to commercial advertising executive Rosser Reeves. A Madison
Avenue guru who recognized television's potential for selling products
like Anacin and M&Ms, Reeves also saw the possibilities raised by
television for selling political candidates (Diamond & Bates, 1992;
Wood, 1990) and devised a series of short, simple spots for Eisenhower.
Labeled the "Eisenhower Answers America" series, these spots used a
question-and-answer format in which Eisenhower is shown briefly
answering a question put to him by one or more members of the public.
A few longer spots varied this format by including war footage and
pictures of Eisenhower meeting with European leaders during wartime.
One such spot proclaimed Eisenhower the "Man from Abilene."
4 Videostyle in Presidential Campaigns

However, the best-known spot from the campaign was not produced
in this manner by Reeves or anyone else on Madison Avenue. For the
1952 Eisenhower television effort, Walt Disney Studios produced and
donated the only political commercial ever done by the Disney anima-
tors, an animated jingle often called the "I Like Ike" commercial, in
reference to the repeated refrain of the background song. While no
elaborate studies validate the effectiveness of this first presidential spot
campaign, many observers believe the spots were instrumental in cre-
ating a warm and caring image for Eisenhower, softening his earlier
reputation as a cold, military figure.
Eisenhower's opponent in the 1952 campaign was the Democratic
nominee, Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Stevenson did not particularly
approve of "selling candidates like soap" and was reluctant to delegate
his campaigning to television directors and producers. The Stevenson
campaign chose not to fight Eisenhower on the airwaves, producing
few spots for national distribution. The Illinois Democratic Party pro-
duced several musical and animated spots on behalf of the Stevenson
campaign, but these did not receive national airtime.
The 1956 campaign was another Eisenhower-Stevenson matchup, but
this time Stevenson decided to give television more of a chance. His
campaign produced a series of spots to counter the claims of the "Man
from Abilene." In Stevenson's "Man from Libertyville" spots, the for-
mer Illinois governor is seen talking from his home surrounded by
books, helping his daughter-in-law with the grocery shopping, and
talking foreign policy with Senator John F. Kennedy.
While most of Eisenhower's spots and the few produced by Steven-
son in 1952 tended to be short spots, many only 20 seconds in length,
the advertising of both parties in 1956 made extensive use of formats
now considered very long, the 5-minute ad. But neither the longer
format, the appearance of the candidate himself (as was the case in most
Eisenhower 1952 spots), nor nostalgia for the television of yesteryear
should fool anyone into thinking these spots were all positive, upbeat
spots focused on the candidate's own ideas. In fact, as the data reveal
in later chapters of this book, these spot campaigns were among the
most negative in the history of American presidential campaigns.
In the 1960 presidential campaign, there was no hesitation on either
side; both Democratic nominee John F. Kennedy and Vice-President
Richard M. Nixon embraced television enthusiastically. In addition to
the significance of the first series of television candidate debates (Kraus,
1962), both candidates produced an unprecedented number of spots of
varying lengths and formats. Because there were so many more spots
produced and used in this campaign (a combined total or more than 100
different ones), the potential for more and varied approaches was
realized. Although not typical of the Kennedy spot arsenal that often
 Presidential Campaign Advertising on Television 5

featured the candidate speaking head-on in straightforward issue state-

ments, the best-known Kennedy spot is a jingle spot in which the video
appears animated (in fact, it is a form of pixillation) and consists mostly
of signs with the Kennedy name and occasional still pictures, including
Kennedy photos. There is no audio message other than a song under
the video, which constantly repeats the Kennedy name: "Kennedy,
Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy. Ken-ne-dy
for me. Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy. Do you want a man for
President who's seasoned through and through, but not so doggone
seasoned that he won't try something new? A man who's old enough
to know and young enough to do? Well, it's u p to you, it's u p to you,
it's strictly u p to you. Do you like a man who answers straight, a man
who's always fair? We'll measure him against the others and when you
compare, you'll cast your vote for Kennedy and the change that's
overdue. So, it's u p to you, it's u p to you, it's strictly up to you. Kennedy,
Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy for me. Ken-
nedy, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy .. . Kennedy!" People who see this
spot today and are told that it is a classic "name identification spot," a
spot designed to get the candidate's name out and remembered by the
voters, are puzzled. They wonder why John Kennedy needed such a
spot, forgetting, of course, that at this point in American history John
Kennedy was a relatively unknown senator from Massachusetts.
Richard Nixon's spots in 1960 are a bit like his often-criticized televi-
sion debate performance, high on substance but low on style and
charisma. Many featured his foreign policy experience and tried to
capitalize on the popularity of his running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge.
The 1964 campaign is often characterized as a watershed year in
presidential campaign advertising because of its negativity. Incumbent
president Lyndon B. Johnson did indeed embark on an ad campaign
that attempted to vilify Barry Goldwater for everything from injudi-
cious use of nuclear weapons to destruction of Social Security. The ads
also marked the first time in which the candidate himself was virtually
absent from the ad campaign. Although his voice is often heard as a
voice-over on the video of a commercial, Johnson himself rarely appears
in the 1964 ads. The most famous ad from this campaign is well known
to scholars and political observers as the "Daisy Girl" spot. In it, a small
girl counts as she picks the petals from a daisy; in the background a
countdown is heard, and the camera zeroes in on the child's eye just as
the countdown ends and a nuclear explosion occurs with the appear-
ance of a mushroom cloud. The voice-over by Johnson says, "These are
the stakes: to make a world in which all of God's children can live or to
go into the darkness. We must either love each other or we must die."
Only broadcast one time, on September 7,1964, during NBC's Monday
Night at the Movies, this spot is the most famous ad ever created for a
6 Videostyle in Presidential Campaigns

political campaign at any level. By many standards, it also deserves the

label of "infamous" (West, 1993, p. 65). The spot, although it does not
use opponent Barry Goldwater's name, conjures up all manner of
negative associations about Goldwater and what "he might do," seem-
ing to validate the concerns of those who often changed Goldwater's
campaign slogan, "In your heart, you know he's right," to "In your
heart, you know he might." Despite producer Tony Schwartz's defense
of the ad (Schwartz, 1973), the spot is a classic "fear appeal," designed
to rely on emotion, not logic or rationality, in eliciting the "responsive
chord" in voters that Schwartz believes all advertising must tap to be
successful.
Unlike Johnson, Barry Goldwater chose to appear in many of his
advertising messages, often long, 30-minute programs in which he
expounded on his views and elaborated on his concern about morality
issues. Also unlike the Johnson ad campaign, which expunged mention
of the vice-presidential candidate, Hubert Humphrey; Barry Goldwater
often referred to his running mate, Bill Miller, in his speeches and ads.
Ironically, it was not Barry Goldwater's own appearances that would
be remembered from his advertising campaigns; few can recall any
particularly memorable spots. However, it was the outstanding perfor-
mance by a celebrity endorser that would capture the attention of many
political observers. In his first political appearances on television, actor
Ronald Reagan gave stirring and convincing testimonials in defense of
Goldwater and his intentions. In one ad, Reagan proclaims:

I asked to speak to you because I'm mad. I've known Barry Goldwater for
a long time. And when I hear people say he's impulsive and such nonsense,
I boil over. Believe me, if it weren't for Barry keeping those boys in
Washington on their toes, do you honestly think our national defense
would be as strong as it is? And remember, when Barry talks about the
way to keep the peace, when he says that only the strong can remain free,
he knows what he's talking about. And I know the wonderful Goldwater
family. Do you honestly believe that Barry wants his sons and daughters
involved in a war? Do you think he wants his wife to be a wartime mother?
Of course not. So join me, won't you, let's get a real leader, and not a power
politician in the White House. Vote for Barry Goldwater.

So impressed with Reagan's performance were political leaders in the

Republican Party that in 1966 he ran for and was elected governor of
California and went on to star in his own presidential spots in 1980 and
1984.
By 1968 television advertising in presidential campaigns had become
commonplace and an essential part of any campaign. It was unthink-
able for any presidential candidate, however uncomfortable he might
 Presidential Campaign Advertising on Television 7

be with the medium, to shun the use of political television advertising.

And so it has gone to the present, with television spots occupying an
ever-increasing percentage of presidential campaign budgets.

THE COST OF CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING IN

PRESIDENTIAL CONTESTS
One mark of how significant political advertising on television has
become is the amount of money spent on it in each successive presiden-
tial election cycle. There are no completely accurate figures available on
advertising expenditures in the earliest campaigns, but even the most
liberal estimates would put presidential television advertising expen-
ditures for both parties at a few million dollars. By 1964 the combined
total for Republican and Democratic candidates had grown to $11
million, and by 1980 even that amount had tripled, to over $34 million
(Alexander, 1983).
The most recent campaigns have been the most expensive, of course.
In 1988 Michael Dukakis and George Bush spent a combined $65 million
for radio and television advertising, supplemented by an additional $14
million from the Republican National Committee (RNC) and Demo-
cratic National Committee (DNC) and millions more from state parties
(Devlin, 1989). The 1992 campaign saw even higher spending levels,
with George Bush spending $48.8 million on ads (including $10.3 from
the RNC) and Bill Clinton spending $35 million (including $9 million
from the DNC) (Devlin, 1993). In addition, 1992 was a particularly
expensive year because a viable third-party candidate, Ross Perot, did
not take federal matching funds and instead spent his own money,
including over $40 million for advertising on television (Devlin, 1993).
The 1996 campaign proved even more expensive, partly because of the
increased spending by the national parties on behalf of their presiden-
tial nominees. Bill Clinton spent $44 million in general election adver-
tising, which followed $12 million in primary spending (although he
had no opponent) and $42.2 million in post-primary/pre-general elec-
tion spending by the DNC on his behalf, for total ad spending of over
$98 million (Devlin, 1997). Bob Dole, on the other hand, spent a com-
bined total of only $78.2 million in the primary and general election
phases, including RNC money spent on his behalf (Devlin, 1997).

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT OF POLITICAL

TELEVISION ADVERTISING
One of the aspects of political advertising that seems the most trou-
bling to many observers, even unbelievable to foreign observers of the
8 Videostyle in Presidential Campaigns

American system, is the basically unregulated nature of political television

advertising. Political advertising in the United States operates under very
few restrictions of any kind. Regulations that do exist fall into three basic
categories: (1) spending limits on general campaign expenditures deter-
mined by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), (2) broadcast regulation
rules for the sale/purchase of equal time according to the Access and Equal
Time Provisions (312a&b) of the Federal Communication Act, as enforced
by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), and (3) statutory or
case law that relates to advertising content.

Spending Limits
The first major campaign regulation law in the United States, the
Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971 (revised in 1974), set
limits on the amount of contributions that individuals ($1,000 per
candidate per election, with primary and general elections treated as
separate elections) and multiparty committees or PACs ($5,000 per
candidate per election) could give to political candidates. The original
1971 act tried to set limits in cents per voter on the amount of funds that
could be spent on advertising, but this provision was eliminated as
unworkable in subsequent revisions. Consequently, the law as it is now
in place sets no limit on the amount of funds a presidential candidate
may spend for television advertising. However, a candidate who agrees
to take matching funds from the FEC must adhere to an overall spend-
ing limit for the campaign. This amount is set by the FEC for each
presidential election. The limit does not include so-called soft money
(money spent on behalf of a candidate by the candidate's political party
organization or other such groups).
Independent expenditures (expenditures spent by an individual or
non-campaign group on behalf of a candidate) are also not included in
the federal spending limit, and the Supreme Court has ruled that there
can be no regulation of or limitations on such spending (Buckley v. Valeo,
1976). If a candidate does not agree to accept federal matching funds,
preferring instead to spend his or her own money or money raised
directly by the campaign, he or she does not have to adhere to the
federal spending limit set by the FEC. This was the case for Ross Perot's
1992 campaign, for instance, when Perot shunned federal funds in favor
of using his own personal fortune.
It is important to note that this overall spending limit only indirectly
influences advertising expenditures. A candidate could, in theory,
spend all of the amount set by the federal limit and provided as match-
ing funds on television advertising. In reality, most recent campaigns
have spent well over half and sometimes over 75% of their total expen-
diture limit on electronic advertising (Devlin, 1989, 1993,1997).
 Presidential Campaign Advertising on Television 9

The federal regulations under the FECA law regulate campaign con-
tent in only one substantial way. The law requires that any communi-
cation advocating the election or defeat of a candidate through media
(broadcast, billboard, newspaper, etc.) must state whether it is author-
ized or not authorized by the candidate and name the committee that
financed it.

Broadcasting Regulations and Political Advertising

The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) administers the Fed-
eral Communication Act (FCA) of 1934 (and revisions), which requires
under its access provision (312a) that a licensed broadcast station must
provide reasonable access to or permit purchase of a reasonable amount
of time for the use of the station by all legally qualified candidates for
federal elective office (National Association of Broadcasters, 1988). The
term "use" is defined as meaning that the candidate must appear on the
air (in television this can be by picture or by voice or both). This
requirement can be satisfied by the candidate being "readily identifi-
able to a substantial degree by the listening or viewing audience."
Consequently, it is not necessary for the candidate to appear or play any
substantial role in the commercial.
In addition, the FCA requires that in allocating time (or allowing its
purchase) for candidates stations must adhere to the Equal Time Provi-
sion (312b), providing essentially equal-time access to all candidates.
Stations must also sell this time at what is called "the lowest unit rate."
This requirement, which is very unpopular with broadcasters, requires
that the station must sell the advertising time to candidates at the lowest
rate it has charged other commercial advertisers during the preceding
45 days, even if that rate is part of a discounted package rate.
Reinforcing the FECA requirement for sponsor identification in ads,
the FCC also requires that political ads carry a "disclaimer" indicating
the sponsoring entity. However, in administering the FCA, the FCC
allows no station censorship of the content of political advertising.
Although many stations have tried to gain exceptions to this principle,
the FCC and the courts have generally held firm on this point, main-
taining that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any
restraint on the content or format of political speech. For this reason,
stations themselves are held to be exempt from any claim of libel or
slander arising from an advertisement broadcast on their station.

Curbs on False or Misleading Content

The U.S. legal system permits virtually no limitations on political
advertising content, primarily because of the fear of conflict with the
10 Videostyle in Presidential Campaigns

First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Although occasional objec-

tions have been raised to political advertising content on the grounds
that the content itself is objectionable (as in the use of explicit abortion
videos) or that the content makes a false claim about a sponsoring
candidate's own qualifications (e.g., claiming a college degree where
none exists), most concerns about political content have arisen out of
attack advertising in which an opponent claims that the sponsoring
candidate has made false or misleading statements about the opponent.
Since so many laws explicitly or implicitly prohibit any regulation of
political content, the only recourse most candidates have against false
or misleading claims is to pursue action under libel laws. However, the
courts set rigorous standards for proving libel for public figures, as
candidates are generally interpreted to be. The attacked candidate must
prove that the charge made against him or her was indeed malicious
(i.e., knowingly false or with reckless disregard for the truth) in order
to win such a suit (Albert, 1986). While such procedures offer legal
remedies for extreme cases where the stringent burden of proof can be
met, the judicial system is generally a slow and cumbersome remedy,
the outcome of which cannot be expected to culminate in time to affect
directly the outcome of electoral contests (Albert, 1986; Winsbro, 1987).
Laws in some individual states also prohibit candidates from making
false or deceptive claims. These laws offer some protection against false
affirmative claims by a candidate as well as false accusations against an
opponent. For instance, Ohio has a detailed code that prohibits false
claims of incumbency, untruthful qualifications (such as earned degrees
or occupations), false endorsements, and false statements about voting
records (Winsbro, 1987). These laws offer some hope for false advertis-
ing claims. While there will always be difficulty in distinguishing
between truth and falsity (partly because of the difficulty in differenti-
ating fact and opinion in a legal sense), the courts at all levels have
usually been contemptuous of anyone who attempts to argue that false
claims must be heard on free speech grounds. For instance, in Gertz v.
Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) the court said "there is no constitutional value
in false statements of fact."
Interestingly, the general public is quite naive about the protections
enjoyed by political broadcast speech. A survey by Lang and Krueger
(1993) found that most people incorrectly believe the government and
broadcasters have the right to step in and prohibit politicians from
running false or misleading ads.
The inability to regulate advertising content in political campaigns
continues to trouble candidates, political interest groups like Common
Cause, and concerned journalists. Such concerns have even led to
arguments that political advertising should be regulated as product
 Presidential Campaign Advertising on Television 11
advertising is, according to "truth in advertising" standards applied by
the Federal Trade Commission (Spero, 1980).
This continuing concern about false and misleading claims and the
difficulty of regulating them under First Amendment strictures has led
to other attempts to affect a candidate's "videostyle." While candidates
once had free rein in what they said about themselves and their oppo-
nents, watchdog groups now scrutinize political spots, and newspaper
and television journalists have begun to do "adwatches" as a way of
curbing false and misleading spots (Broder, 1989). These attempts at
informal regulation have reached new heights in the last three presiden-
tial campaign cycles (since 1988 in particular) and now have an impact
on what candidates say and do in their television advertising.