Ad world loads guns for presidential race

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton (left) is already facing an attack ad TV campaign by Republican Senator Rand Paul. Photo / AP

Unlimited money and tech-savvy advisers ensure 2016 campaign will be a gamechanger, writes Peter Huck.

Afemale voice calls out, "What path will America take?" as "Bailouts" and "Big Government", written in block capitals, flash over black and white images of rundown, deserted streets. "Will it be a path to the past? A road to yesterday? To a place we've been to before. Hillary Clinton represents the worst of the Washington machine. The arrogance of power, corruption and cover-up. Conflicts of interest and failed leadership with tragic consequences. The Washington machine is destroying the American Dream. It's time for a new leader and a new way!"

That would be Rand Paul, the standard bearer of the Republican Party's libertarian wing.

Besides mining the ever popular "it's Washington's fault" school of political thought, Paul's 60-second spot was notable as the first "candidate on candidate" attack, or negative, advertisement of the 2016 presidential season, according to that august media voice Fox News. The spot aired in Nevada, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa from mid-April.

The Republican National Congress' "Stop Hillary" ad also aired in April, questioning Clinton's ethics. Set to ominous music that hints the Manchurian Candidate is in the house, it ticks off a conservative's love-to-hate-her list: "used her personal email account to conduct official business", "taking millions of dollars from foreign governments" and so on. Nothing new here. The RNC's "A Very Serious Matter", which aired in March, implies donations from foreign states to the Clinton Foundation spawned conflicts of interest.

Then there's "Rigged", aired in February and paid for by American Crossroads, a SuperPAC set up by Republican strategist Karl Rove. It plugs the conflict of interest theme by lifting remarks made by Senator Elizabeth Warren, darling of the left, at a 2013 union convention. Warren blasts corporates as "powerful interests" that "capture Washington and rig the system". The ad simply makes it sound like she is criticising Clinton.

Campaigning is not for the faint- hearted and when it comes to the presidential race, the Grand Old Party is signalling that Hillary is the candidate to beat. At this early stage her foes must define Clinton as unethical and untrustworthy, maybe hoping some new revelation will allow them to kneecap her later on. Although with some 500 attack ad days left before Americans vote on November 8, 2016, the winner is anyone's guess.

Paul's ad is instructive. First it castigates Clinton, a winning strategy with the conservative base. Next it tries to establish who Rand is and what he stands for; it's vital to define yourself before your rivals do it for you. It targets four states likely to hold the first party caucuses and primaries, crucial if Rand is to get break-out recognition and money, as 13 declared Republican candidates jostle for coverage with no clear favourite.

Hoping to see off rivals, Rand has also used internecine attack ads, bashing Senator Ted Cruz, a Tea Party favourite, as a Canadian "birther" who believes Barack Obama is not a native-born American.

Another Republican candidate, Mike Huckabee, has been targeted by Club for Growth, a conservative anti-tax outfit that asks, "Who is that tax-and-spend Arkansas Governor? Bill Clinton? No, it's Mike Huckabee." In comparison, the Democrat camp, with four declared candidates, has ignored Clinton's ethics. An adviser with Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, running to Clinton's left, told Time, "We're not going down that road. We're not going to run a negative campaign." There is almost a collegiate feel, with Clinton tweeting a welcome to Sanders when he declared. But while her peers take the high road and talk policy, Clinton may need to go negative against her GOP foes as the race intensifies.

So far, she has left the counterattack to support groups like Correct the Record, which quickly returned fire at Rand. Given past campaign smears, like the notorious Swift Boat saga that torpedoed John Kerry's White House run in 2004, this is vital if she is to defuse incoming attack ads.

Republican Senator Rand Paul. Photo / AP

According to the Centre for Public Integrity (CPI) over US$1 million ($1.45 million) had been spent by early June on negative ads, with Clinton the target. The CPI's Michael Beckel suggested this was just the first scattered raindrops in a coming deluge of presidential mudslinging that will "rapidly hit eight, then eventually nine figures", as more and more hopefuls toss their hats into the presidential money pit. And this was before property tycoon Donald Trump, who Forbes says is worth US$4.1 billion, said he would run.

All of which warms the hearts of ad men. During the 2014 midterm elections, more than US$1 billion was spent on some 2.2 million ads, according to Open Secrets, which monitors campaign spending. That spending is now unrestrained after the Supreme Court's conservative majority gutted US campaign funding rules to allow unlimited spending, a seismic move that gives the rich and powerful huge influence in an election.

"This would have been unthinkable a generation ago," says Dave Levinthal, the CPI's senior political reporter. "Elections start earlier and earlier. More and more money is needed to win. And the court's decisions mean supporters can raise, and spend, hitherto unthinkable sums of money. Both sides are exploiting this new playing field to gain advantage.

"Races are now hyper-competitive and very, very long," says Levinthal. He expects the 2016 race to "obliterate" the record sums spent in 2012.

Besides the White House, election money will also flow to congressional, gubernatorial, state and local races, a boon to advertisers, the field's only clear winners. "If you're in the advertising business this is paradise. You're guaranteed there will be more spending on TV, radio and nternet ads than ever before in a presidential or political campaign of any sort."

Back when television was king, attack ads could deliver knockout blows. In 1988 George H. Bush sank his Democratic rival, Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, with the "Weekend Passes" spot, orchestrated by Bush's campaign manager, "boogie man" Lee Atwater. The infamous ad, blasted as racist, depicted a black convict, Willie Horton, who committed a series of violent crimes while released on furlough during Dukakis' watch.

It is harder to replicate that bygone age now. TV still dominates a court that includes radio and newspapers. But social media has upended the ad game, along with the tsunami of unregulated money as Twitter, Facebook, music streaming company Pandora and Google's YouTube enter the fray. Online revenues grew from US$14 million in 2010 to US$270 million in 2014 and, says a Reuters report, could hit US$1 billion in the 2016 race.

Social media allows candidates to tailor their message - and attack ads - to niche groups, especially tech-savvy millennials. Reuters says campaigns can "slice and dice" voters, using commercially available tax, real estate and internet search records to target them with ads on issues they care about - a potential game changer in a tight race. In 2012, the Iowa GOP caucus, an iconic campaign trail way station, was decided by a handful of votes.

"The 2016 election will be a laboratory for political messaging and innovation," says Levinthal. "You better believe politicians and parties all over the world are going to look at this election for lessons to be learned."