Editorial: Special interests skew election ads

It’s that time of year: campaign advertising season, which brings with it those shudder-inducing attack ads that voters say they don’t want to see, but sometimes can’t turn away from.

Along for the ride are a slew of expensive and glowing ads that are extremely supportive of a candidate, yet state, “Paid for by … without the approval and authority of the candidate.”

A problem arises with both of these types of campaign-related messaging when financed by opaque political action committees (PACs) — or worse, super PACs with the ability to spend unlimited amounts of money while disavowing any direct coordination with a candidate.

This messaging is legal, protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, as determined by the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The lack of transparency and accountability inherent in this “independent” messaging, enabled by Citizens United, is a troubling aspect of contemporary campaigns.

Dark-money messaging often manipulates voters without being fully truthful, and allows candidates to escape accountability for the content. The issue isn’t necessarily that a campaign message is “negative” or “positive,” but more particularly whether it’s truthful or funded by unknown sources.

Voters must look closely at campaigns boosted by PAC and super PAC spending, asking themselves whether they are comfortable with candidates who benefit from it.

Voters also should ask: Does the PAC/super PAC fully disclose its membership and contributors? The process is similar to checking for a candidate’s endorsements, or direct contributors.

The responsibility, unavoidable because of Citizens United’s free speech protections, lies with voters to be informed and diligent.

Voters often say they don’t want to see negative ads — but if there are valid questions about a candidate’s fitness to serve, there is value in having that information more widely known. They must consider whether the messaging is a misleading attack against a candidate, slanted with half-truths. On the flip side, campaign materials that play up the “positive” characteristics of a candidate who loves children and puppies don’t tell us much about whether this candidate has the skills, ethics and fortitude to be a great representative.

Voters lose in such money-obscured scenarios, because the debate is not centered on voters’ true concerns or issues, and allow donors to hide ulterior motives and influence peddling. These are flaws in the system that can’t easily be fixed, due to the lamentable Citizens United decision.

Still, voters aren’t helpless. They can push back by refusing to be manipulated by dark money and attack ads, by researching the issues and by choosing candidates on platform and past performance, rather than perception and innuendo.

Now that mail-in voting is established in Hawaii, the timeline for unleashing PAC-supported messaging has been moved up, and targeted candidates have more time to respond. The Aug. 13 primary will test that dynamic.

Voters continue to hold power, and they can exercise it by delving into candidates’ campaigns. If dark-money messaging is involved, extra attention and careful judgment are required.