Mud-slinging ad season finally comes to an end

Regardless of which candidates prevail in today’s election, the public will be elated since the endless barrage of political television ads will end.

A plethora of ads for candidates and ballot questions has dominated the airwaves. Invariably, the ads have followed a similar pattern over the course of the campaign.

The initial candidate ads are respectful with background information describing their longstanding commitment and accomplishments on important issues. Subsequently, the ads become a general rejection of their opponent’s policies and qualifications. Then, the spots ramp up personal attacks that all but suggest incarceration for their opponent. The campaign attack ads seem based upon the old Clairol line, “the closer you get the WORSE they look.” Finally, by the end of the campaign, the ads only include reasons not to support an opponent rather than arguments supporting the candidate him or herself.

The venom and frequency of current ads always turn the contests into political mud wrestling. More importantly, a circular on ballot questions received by registered voters is their only objective means of deciding which candidate is the lesser of two evils.

What is and remains lacking are formal oversight bipartisan panels assigned to evaluate the substance and civility of all political television ads. The panel would review all ads and issue a “grade” that would appear at the end of each ad. The grade would assist voters in determining the credibility of the ad. There would be no prior restraint or First Amendment violation. The process would simply ensure that voters had a reasonable means to evaluate candidates better than the character assassination snippets and inevitable mudwrestling.