IV. CONCLUSION

Through the examination of selected 2002 Georgia elections in the context of scholarly research, results show that the use of negative campaigning is increasing, but the characteristics, determined by scholarly research, of the candidates likely to use attack advertising are consistent with the research in real campaigns. Negative advertisements are highly effective during campaigns and seem to lead to electoral victories. Likewise, the traditional view that extreme negativity in advertisements could yield negative effects on the sponsor is disproved due to the phenomena of the sleeper effect (as demonstrated in the races between Unterman and Stevens as well as Chambliss and Cleland). These findings create interesting positions for future candidates, the public, and the media. The role of the media expands throughout the last twenty years and it will inevitably play a much larger role in the future. After analyzing each campaign, I determined which campaigns illustrated an effective use of negative campaigning. Of all the campaigns analyzed, the most effective candidate and campaign manager who strategically used negative campaigning were Chambliss and his political consultant Tom Perdue. Chambliss presented himself well in his role as a Republican challenger by refuting negative ads against him and arguing negative claims that attacked Cleland. However, Perdue was responsible for Chambliss’ position as an attacking challenger. An interesting person to analyze in the context of scholarly research, Perdue admitted he had no strategy but only followed his instincts. Ignoring criticism that accompanied the advertisement including Osama bin Laden’s image, Perdue helped Chambliss battle Cleland in the close U.S. Senate race. Due to the complex nature of each campaign and numerous mistakes made by candidates, it was difficult to choose a campaign that illustrated the least effective use of negative campaigning. In his campaign against Chambliss, Cleland was tied to the first attack of the race sponsored by the Sierra Club. As an incumbent, Cleland’s association with the first attack was a mistake. Also, Cleland’s negative, dramatic reaction to the advertisement including Osama bin Laden’s image was a mistake as it drew more attention to Chambliss campaign, improving his name recognition and ultimately closing the incumbency advantage gap. Still, Cleland was not the only candidate to commit campaigning sins; Haines’ refusal to defend himself against Kemp’s attacks violated research and was not an effective strategy. Likewise, Stevens’ did not document her attacks as well as her challenger, Unterman, who made evidence of attacking claims the focal point of her campaign. Barnes is an interesting case because, even though he and Perdue were extremely negative, his loss cannot be entirely attributed to his campaign. Most mistakes Barnes made occurred during his time as governor and not during his campaign because he allowed for truth in several of Perdue’s negative advertisements.

Freedom of Speech

Despite critics who believe that increases in negative campaigning will invariably result in increased cynicism, decreased public mood, and “could undermine the American political system, the use of this strategy is protected by the First Amendment in the United States Constitution" (Lau and Pomper, 2001). The right to free speech is consistent with the right of any individual or group to criticize, to object, or to dissent. The freedom of speech implies that all individuals should have the freedom to associate for the purpose of advancing beliefs and ideas. However, the U.S. Supreme Court finds constitutional recent legislation, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA), that includes a provision within the law entitled “Stand by your Ad” (Price, 2003). Candidates are required to take responsibility for their ads and have the option of appearing full screen in television ads and delivering the disclaimer directly or delivering the disclaimer in a voice-over with a “clearly identifiable” picture on the screen (Price, 2003). Future research should focus on how this new policy will accentuate public policy implications of negative advertising as an information source in mass media.

[ Abstract - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - Bibliography]