There is widespread concern that the recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decision to roll back restrictions on corporate spending in federal campaigns could unleash a torrent of corporate-funded attack ads in upcoming elections.

On behalf of the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence.”

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens accused the majority of judicial activism and attacked the use of corporate personhood in the case: “The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.”

Good arguments can be made on both sides of this issue in regard to whether it captures the spirit of the constitutional mandate to protect political speech. But personally, I don’t think advertising is the problem. A strong case can be made that there is not enough spent on political advertising in relation to how important these election results are and how almost completely inept our political leaders have been at responsibly managing the approximately $3 trillion federal budget. Larger communication budgets to promote campaigns should help us hold political officials more accountable for what they promise during their campaigns and for their actual behavior in office.

Much has been made about the rising cost of campaigning to become President. According to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), a total of 148 candidates for all parties and candidates who ran for President in 2008 raised a collective total of $1,644,712,232 and spent $1,601,104,696 for the primary and general campaigns through the 2008 election. The amounts raised and spent by the two major candidates, according to the same source, was:

Candidate (Party)   $ Raised               $ Spent                  Votes              $ per vote

Barack Obama (D) $ 532,946,511    $ 513,557,218      69,498,215           $ 7.39

John McCain (R)     $ 379,006,485    $ 346,666,422      59,948,240           $ 5.78

These expenditures, in part, led to the highest turnout of voters (63%) since 1960. Not a bad result. Including all the candidates’ expenditures, around $20 per vote was spent on the 2008 Presidential campaign. By commercial standards, and given the importance of the purchase decision, that doesn’t seem unduly high, especially when compared with the amount we each spend to fund the government.

Political marketing suffers some structural disadvantages that the commercial world does not. First, in general elections, voters usually see only a pair of realistically viable candidates to choose between. That’s a key reason turnout is low. In just about any other product category, there are many more choices. As a result, consumer interest—and consumption—is higher than political interest and consumption.

Second, the voter’s enthusiasm is episodically crushed by having to accept what the majority decides, no matter how far out of alignment that candidate’s values are from the voter’s.

Additionally, in the U.S. we can only cast a vote on a specified date once every two, four or six years, except by absentee ballot. Given the vagaries of voting, there might be a line to wait in, foul weather, a sudden crazy schedule to deal with or even a level of mistrust over whether an outdated voting machine will actually work. The commercial marketplace is vastly more efficient and convenient. Consumers cast their votes in millions of purchase decisions every day, increasingly online. We still operate under voting laws that existed when you might have had to ride a horse two days to get to the polls.

Finally, many politicians understand that they need to develop a personal brand with a distinctive, appealing message, delivered consistently over time. But it is often difficult to be this consistent and actually win. Politicians have to win a majority on Election Day, and doing so often makes them believe they need to parse words, trying to have it both ways, and thus become perceived as flip-flopping on issues. In addition, our win-lose system often forces candidates to undertake destructive tactics such as negative advertising to tear down their opponents rather than promoting their own virtues. When both candidates participate in this approach, both brands suffer, as does the entire political category.

What’s needed in politics is not less advertising but better marketing and branding: focusing on current and emerging “customer” needs, developing “product” and credible service solutions, informing interested citizens about them and making themselves easily accessible in person and through social media and other communication channels. But the real key is for politicians to understand that making unkept promises, while common, is what is hurting them most.

Perhaps a good starting point would be for politicians to view citizens not as occasional voters, donors and taxpayers but as their “customers” who are much, much more intelligent than most politicians seem to think. Voters remember what you say and if you keep your promises, especially if you are running for President.

President Obama won the past election, in part, with much better marketing than his opponent. But his brand strength and place in history will ultimately be defined by how well he delivers on his campaign promises. The brand promises are half the brand, keeping them is the other half. If politicians want to know why they are held in such low regard, they need look no further than their trail of broken promises. That is the problem, not advertising.

-Patrick Strother

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post