Media and Election Campaigns
The knack of using political ads in elections within America has been a pivotal element of winning and losing elections. Reflecting from former election campaigns, videos, pictures as well as simulations have become more prevalent in propelling election and political drives than before. Often, these ads reflect the ideals and propaganda of either the democratic or the republic parties within the US political system. This paper evaluates different campaign ads and the variances of adverts in campaigns for the purposes of communication. Special focus in this paper will be made on Republican and Democrat ads selected as well as the links necessary.
Ads by Move-on and Crossroads by Republicans
The ad by Moveon.org is an attempt to support the policy of President Barack Obama regarding the free internet. Being in office and the nature of opposition available in the various sectors from the Republican supporters, the ad tries to support the free internet policy by drawing public support to Obama’s decision against the demands of the Republicans through FCC. The 35 seconds YouTube clip with an exclusive interview with Obama on the policy as well as the variances in internet policy usage unveils the impression of the public on internet policy. By watching the ad, the benefit of having an open internet policy becomes explicit. Evidently, internet targets a majority of the youth who play online computer games as well as the social media platforms and influence. Having analysed their targets, the ad juxtaposes two instances of internet usage that reveal a faster connection as well as slower connection. It becomes evident that a slower connection is unwanted and leads to frustrations among the users. Stating the objective of the ad at the end of the clip with a support of President Obama reveals the need to support the policy. Though not overtly opposing the opposition to Obama’s policies, the advert appeals to the majority of the public to reflect and use their right judgment in the open internet policy usage.
Additionally, the choice of internet user policies found within the ad denotes the target group influence by the media product above. In essence, the internet usage is based on the generation Y as well as the millennial groups. The ad on open advert illustrates a more realistic tendency of the public to employ internet usage policies within the US. Ideally, the public target, the youth of America, would want a faster internet connection and reliable internet policy. Judging from my impression, a policy should gather support from the beneficiaries who are from the advert, more inclined to the youth (Press release 2013).
In many instances, independent advert groups have been prominent in the campaigns of political elections in America. These firms rarely disclose their donors yet have interest groups that entail immense instances of political spending. Whether these sources are invisible or not, Moveon.org is one firm that has been pro-Democrats over the decades in democratic power. Research into the last six months before the 2012 election of the firm reveals spending of immense magnitude especially in adverts and connections involving president Obama and his supporters. Politically, these firms lack any profit garnering orientation as may be indicated within their working profile. However, Arin (2) notes that Move-on spent close to 28.5 million USD on the marketing portfolio while enhancing cooperation within the fringes of the November presidential polls. According to Washington Post, most of the ad spending emanated from swing states where the conservative groups existed. These groups often criticize the policies of Obama. Most of their sources of income are kept secret despite the open move to support most Republican supporters within the election paradigm.
It is a statutory requirement that electoral commissions with legal backing of the presidential campaigns and their affiliate parties disclose their financial structure and sources. The inclination to use nonprofit firms has been a resort for many Republican Party affiliates who have created anonymous groups for non-profit with unlikely sources of funds. Press release (2013) notes that these firms do not have to disclose their backers financially as was the norm and legal requirement with registered campaign organizations.
Moreover, deeper research into firms such as Move-on has a secret backing of tycoons and rich personalities who chose to remain anonymous. The rates of such firms reflect the shift of most rich people to finance cartels that are not for profit in campaigns policies as opposed to the legal firms required. Crossroads GPS is one of the largest firms as indicated above for nonprofit finances and campaign strategies. Move-on claims to have raised over USD 30 million, which came from donors who chose to be unidentified. These donations especially occurred during the first stages of their year. Coming from unidentified donors, the firm claimed to raise more money than other firms registered for such campaigns.
The group has a history of having run more cycles of ads that are anti-Obama. The number is stated to have reached over 12 million. Coincidentally, these finances emanate from secret donors from the nonprofit arm. Arin notes that recent spending in ads of close to 90 percent came from nonprofit arms to the tune of USD 76 million in 2011 (12). These donors finance the ads in shares of over one million or more including two unidentified members who contributed over ten million each. Similar to the Move-on ad, and pro Obama org, most ads by these firms address issues without specifically advocating a candidate to vote either of the candidates. This type of strategy is related to the social requirement that secretly urges and advances the nuances of a particular candidate to the society. Ideally, the issues are related and connected to the issues or counter issues tackled by the Obama and democratic campaigns.
Such a strategy is critical in advancing their policies as well as conforming to the rules and systems of the IRS. Arin (3) notes that one of the major rules of IRS is that social welfare groups can emerge as long as they do not advance the politics of the state. Reflecting on the instance where a spot noted one policy of Obama in Virginia on high-energy prices, the ad advocated for a gas reduction price because the populace was having tremendous connection to the social welfare. The caption, noted “tell Obama…, and work towards better policies…” was a specific dimension of the social spheres that work to coordinate the elements of adverts and campaign strategies. Such an ad does not work towards a relative element of formulation. From statistics, the ads have anti-presidential messages and may even denote explicit information without realistically driving the force behind a candidate. Being a “neutral” advert in its nature and address of one issues regardless of its origin stands to speak of the social welfare as opposed to the nature of Obama’s policies.
In conclusion, these ads have a tremendous effect in changing the perspectives of the American citizens in determining the right candidate and party. Politics may be accurate and determined; however, when these firms produce ads of similar magnitude, they create an element of connection between a particular candidate and the society. This becomes a necessary factor in the determination of winning candidates in the subsequent polls. In so saying, many donors and firms are investing in nonprofit organizations to advocate for issues that have a connection to their preferred candidates winning an election. When they do this, they avoid an overt display of their candidate, and counter issues and policies advanced by their opponent. In America, these issues are evident and will continue to determine the nature of elections’ progress and wins. They will also determine the voting direction since finances in polls have generated tremendous concerns of the federal election commission. Examples of these firms such as Move-on organization, Crossroads among others have illustrated explicit support of their preferred candidates without necessarily closing in on their opponent directly. The funding, again, becomes a question to handle by the IRS and not the federal commission of election spending. While many people are moving to such types of election campaigns, the number is generating concern on who funds these campaigns. Ideally, these questions are never that serious since the mode of operation found within these firms enhances discretion in operation and implementation.
Ads used in the paper
‘Open Internet’ — TV Ad from MoveOn.org Calls on FCC to Heed President Obama’s Call
The War on the Poor and Working Families
Arin Greenwood, Occupy DC Protest: Group Pushes Repeal of Citizens United, Corporate Personhood, Huffington Post, Oct. 1, 2012.
Press Release, Charles E. Schumer, “U.S. Senator, Senate Democrats Unveil Legislation to Limit Fallout from Supreme Court Ruling that Allows Unlimited Special-Interest Spending on Elections—Announce Plan for Senate Passage by July 4” (Apr. 29, 2013), available at http://schumer.senate.gov/new_website/record.cfm?id=324343.