Legal Phrasing in Election Campaigns

In class, we watched a documentary that emphasized the importance of phrasing in election ads that run on television. Appealing to different issues with a variety of words can make all the difference when it comes down to making a viewer want to vote for that candidate. However, the legal limitations of election ads can be strict. The documentary described that there are “magic words” that classify an ad as an “election advertisement.” These words include “vote for,” “elect,” “support,” etc. The issue with these requirements is that they’re very easy to get around. As Mr. Stewart mentioned in class, there are so many ways to persuade voters into leaning towards one candidate without having to use the “magic words,” and therefore not having to follow the limitations of legal election ads. Politicians know this very well. Often, candidates will hire professionals and psychologists to help create their campaign ads, using specific phrases that appeal to a certain demographic of people on an issue. They figure out what appeals to the citizens by running studies with focus groups, allowing them to hear and respond to different ways a candidate speaks. After the studies are done, professionals take the phrases with the best responses from the focus group and translate that into phrasing in a nationwide advertisement. This loophole around advertisement classification is controversial, as many think it’s unfair to tiptoe around the law in this way, especially when it involves something as influential as a presidential election, but there is not much anybody can do. As long as the “magic words” aren’t used, it is not considered an election advertisement. Legally, this is completely allowed and cannot be used against a candidate in court.