Romney’s victory in Fla. shows damage smear ads, PACs can do

Mitt Romney won the primary election in Florida on Tuesday. The momentum Newt Gingrich had felt by winning the South Carolina primary has now been depleted. But is this because Romney simply out-debated Gingrich, or is it because Romney was able to spend nearly $12 million more in advertising in Florida? If this GOP race has demonstrated anything, it is money, not necessarily intellect, often lends a big hand to winning races. And now that these candidates are able to benefit from their Political Action Committees and their money spent toward smear advertisements, winning a primary comes hand in hand with being able to finance large-scale smear campaigns against your opponent.

Romney's PAC, Restore Our Future, spent $15.4 million on television and radio advertisements in Florida, according to Kantar Media Campaign Media Analysis Group. Gingrich and his compatriots spent $3 million in advertisements. These are both outrageous amounts for candidates to spend on advertising themselves. One thing is obvious, however, spending more money on advertising, and having large PACs with wealthy donors, is now almost a sure way to take a primary.  Receiving large sums of money from PACs to run large-scale smear campaigns dilutes the democratic process. Out of all the advertisements in Florida, 92 percent were negative in their nature. These candidates are an example of what political culture has become since PACs have been permitted: Superficial and commodified.

As this race becomes more bitter and more cutthroat, we will only see more of the same when it comes to smear ads. It is important to acknowledge that nothing can truly be learned about a candidate in a 30-second commercial. One is lucky to get any substance even out of a televised debate. These ads are shallow in their nature and intended to convince a public it thinks to be ignorant.  

At this point it seems to be less about the candidate themselves and more about their advertising team. The people of the country do not see the candidate anymore. They see the final product, a combination of efficient advertising and PACs funded by individuals who lurk in the background.