TIPA - Truth In Political Advertising

This is the second analysis of political advertising in the nationally-watched U.S. Senate race between Republican businessman Pete Coors and Democratic Attorney General Ken Salazar released by the nonpartisan Truth In Political Advertising Project -- www.TIPAP.org.

The report is part of a series of reports which will be released almost daily during the final 10 days of the campaign. This report evaluates the accuracy, fairness, and relevance of the advertisement entitled, "Newsreel." The advertisement was produced and sponsored by the Pete Coors For Senate Campaign. The advertisement, itself, is available on the TIPA Web site (see above).

“Newsreel” is a very creative ad, fashioned in the form of a old-time black-and-white newsreel seen at movie theaters more than half a century ago. It deploys a fast-paced narrator with voice intonations matched with grainy footage of the opposition, making it appear to have been filmed decades ago. The pace and presentation as well as the format and style of the advertisement itself make it very entertaining. At the time of the writing of this report, there was no other similar advertisement in the field and, as a result, “Newsreel” distinguished itself in this regard and, therefore, could be very effective.

Many members of the TIPA Advisory Panel already have demonstrated their capacity to be objective about the advertisements they review, despite their political affiliations. One Democrat, who rated the ad higher than others in his party, opined, “While I disagree with it, I think it is very creative, keeps the viewer’s attention, stands out from the other ads, and thus, it’s very effective.”

One Republican came to a similar conclusion and concluded, “This ad is stupid, but it will be effective because it's different and somewhat humorous.”

The TIPA uses a "1" to "10" rating scale for Accuracy (with greater accuracy reflected by a higher rating), Fairness (with a higher rating indicating a greater degree of fairness), and Relevancy (with a higher rating meaning the advertisement was most relevant to the campaign). The Rating System is presented in detail on the TIPA Web site. The analysis for “Newsreel” can be summarized as follows.

ACCURACY = 4.8 out of 10.0.

FAIRNESS = 4.4 out of 10.0.

RELEVANCE = 5.6 out of 10.0

ACCURACY RATING DISCUSSION

A 5.0 Accuracy rating is described by the TIPA Rating System as follows: Superficially accurate (approximately 70% of the time) with one or more significant facts intentionally misstated or erroneous; clearly not meeting any kind of minimal standards for overall accuracy but appearing to do so as part of an effort to mislead the observer. ”Newsreel” rated somewhat below that already low standard. It is one of the lowest-rated ads broadcast in the campaign as far as accuracy is concerned.

The average rating by Democrats was 3.0 (with ratings ranging from 1 to 6) while the average for Republicans was 6.5 (with ratings ranging from 4 to 9). The gap between how accurate Republicans and Democrats believed the advertisement was covered almost four rating levels and, therefore, was quite significant in terms of the polarized view of the panelists.

The advertisement goes on to claim “He supports the Clinton-Kerry increase on Social Security benefits” but, again fails to substantiate that this is Salazar’s position. One Republican, whose ratings were above the group’s average but slightly lower than many of her counterparts, most accurately summed up the overall reaction to the advertisement: “At least the commercials on both sides are getting more entertaining. The Clinton/Kerry Social Security tax increase charge is a strange statement and is obviously an attempt to try and link Salazar to anything and everything that is liberal. What Clinton has to do with this Senate race though is beyond me.”

The advertisement uses humor to soften potentially devastating “powder-keg” claims in the race. At one point, the ad charges Salazar with supporting a $142 billion tax hike and then a $278 billion tax hike. The ad goes on to say “Salazar’s high tax agenda will force a Colorado family of four to pay $1,500 a year in higher taxes” but does not explain the basis for this calculation. In the campaign, Salazar has stated he favors rolling back the tax cuts conferred on those earning more than $200,000 a year but that certainly would not affect the vast majority of Colorado families – and certainly not the “typical” family of four depicted in the ad.

The Coors campaign asserts, “Salazar said he would roll back those tax cuts for the richest Americans. (Charles Ashby, Parting shots: Senate candidates fire final campaign salvos, The Pueblo Chieftain, October 15, 2004) According to the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation, this repeal would result in a tax increase of $142.7 billion over six years (2005-2010). Ken Salazar would increase the top bracket from 35 to 39.6 percent. (Ralph A. Rector, Ph.D, ‘ The Revenue Effects of Reinstating the Top Tax Rates,’ The Heritage Foundation Website: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm568.cfm, accessed October 20, 2004 )”

The Coors campaign also argues, “111 million individuals and families will receive an average tax cut of $1,586 in 2004 because of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. (U.S. Department of the Treasury, website: http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1201.htm, accessed October 20, 2004)” and “According to US Treasury Secretary John Snow, (in a speech dated November 13, 2003 to the Tax Foundation in Washington, DC), if the 2001 and 2003 tax relief acts were to expire now, it would raise taxes by an average of $1,544 for 109 million taxpayers in 2003.”

The problem with these numbers is they presume Salazar supports the rollback of the entire set of tax cuts, which he never has said he supports. In other words, the Coors ad takes Salazar’s position and inaccurately applies it to the entire tax cut. The TIPA’s analysis is that “an average family of four,” because the average family does not earn $200,000 or more, will not pay a single penny more in taxes based on Salazar’s positions.

Here is the Salazar campaign’s response. "The very premise of Peter Coors latest attack ad is a flat-out lie, because Ken Salazar doesn’t support raising any taxes whatsoever for the middle class. The truth is that Ken Salazar supports real tax relief for every middle-class family by making 98 percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent, eliminating the marriage tax, eliminating the death tax on estates valued up to $10M (to help keep family farms, ranches and small business in the family where they belong) and making the expanded child tax credit permanent."

On the issue of Social Security, the advertisement misrepresents Salazar’s statements on the subject almost in their entirety. Salazar never has taken a position where he has supported increasing the tax on Social Security benefits (certainly not on with the across-the-board inferred by the Coors advertisement) nor has he aligned himself with any such plan by former President Clinton or Senator Kerry. This is a guilt-by-association tactic which does not even appear to be founded in fact.

The Coors campaign’s basis for the claim is explained as follows (and the TIPA investigated the citations and discusses them, below). Coors’ Tax Plan Proposes “Older People Would No Longer Pay Taxes On Their Social Security Benefits.” (Mark P. Couch, “Tax Cuts Move Into Spotlight In Colorado ’s Senate Contest,” The Denver Post, September 19, 2004 ) Ken Salazar’s Tax Plan Does Not Address Relief For Older Americans Paying Taxes On Their Social Security Benefit. (Mark P. Couch, “Tax Cuts Move Into Spotlight In Colorado ’s Senate Contest,” The Denver Post, September 19, 2004 ; Salazar For Senate Website, accessed by the Coors campaign October 6, 2004: www.salazarforcolorado.com/the_issues/jobs_and_economy.html, Salazar For Senate Website, accessed by the Coors campaign October 6, 2004: www.salazarforcolorado.com/images/pdf/jobs_and_economy.pdf.)

"In 2003, Democrats rejected a Republican-sponsored amendment to repeal the 1993 Social Security benefits tax increase. 'Bunning, R-Ky., amendment that would increase tax cuts in the resolution by $145.6 billion by repealing the 1993 Social Security benefits tax increase.' (S. Con. Res. 23, CQ Vote #94: Rejected 48- 51: R 48-3; D 0-47; I; 0-1, March 25, 2003)".

"The 1993 Budget Bill Increased Taxes On Seniors Making As Little As $34,000 Per Year. 'The 1993 budget deal – which passed by one vote, with Kerry’s support … raised taxes on millions of middle-income retirees, by subjecting more of their Social Security benefits to taxation. The hike amounted to at least several hundred dollars a year for elderly couples with incomes starting at $44,000 a year, or individuals making at least $34,000 a year.' ('The Debate: Sorting Out Fact From Fiction,' The Boston Globe, April 10, 1996)".

The Salazar campaign’s response, in very direct language, is as follows: "Another charge, another Peter Coors lie. Ken Salazar has never said he supports taxing Social Security benefits, because he opposes it. Ken Salazar supports ending the tax on Social Security benefits, because seniors living on fixed incomes are facing difficult choices every day, and the government shouldn’t be taking away the funds that promise them their independence."

While there may be a political benefit to be gained for Coors by linking Salazar to Clinton and/or Kerry (on the assumption Salazar is more popular in Colorado than either Clinton or Kerry and that by linking him to Clinton and/or Kerry, he is cast as a candidate who is “too liberal for Colorado,” it appears the basis for the claim is weak, if not nonexistent.

ACCURACY CONCLUSION. The “Newsreel” ad is not accurate and intentionally misleads voters.

FAIRNESS RATING DISCUSSION

A 4.4 Fairness rating lies between a 4.0 rating -- described as follows: Scurrilous personal attack intentionally distorting the truth to give a false impression of an opponent, yet mixed with enough relevant or reasonable claims to soften what otherwise would be a brutal attack – and a 5.0 rating – described as follows: Contains an unfounded or unjustified personal attack on a candidate which is patently unfair and which is not fair game.

This advertisement received one of the lowest Fairness ratings of any in the campaign. The ad uses a humorous approach to soften its attack but many of the members of the Advisory Panel dismissed this very creative approach and rated it poorly anyway. Some of the most biting comments by panelists included the following:

One panelist commented, “This ad doesn't stretch the truth -- it fabricates it. When I was a little girl learning the definition of Communist propaganda, I envisioned newsreels such as this ad -- promoting lies about one leader (Salazar) in a brainwashing campaign to woo support by the masses for another (Coors).”

The average rating by Democrats was only 3.0 (with ratings ranging from 1 to 6) while the average for Republicans was 5.8 (with ratings ranging from 2 to 8). In either case, it clearly was felt the advertisement was unfair in more than one respect.

FAIRNESS CONCLUSION. “Newsreel” is not a fair advertisement because it inaccurately portrays Salazar’s positions and intentionally mixes economic data and financial analyses not related to Salazar’s positions.

RELEVANCE RATING DISCUSSION

A 5.6 Relevance rating is indicative that the general opinion was the advertisement was off the mark as far as its relevance to the U.S. Senate campaign was concerned. A 5.0 rating is described by the TIPA Rating System as follows: A slight majority of the material is not relevant (e.g., +50%) and, instead, unintentionally obscures those issues which are on the minds of most voters; this advertisement may be sloppier in its construction than intentionally devious (although the ultimate ramification may involve voter confusion).

A 6.0 Relevance rating is described as follows: More relevant than not (i.e., +65%) but containing a confusing mix of topics, subjects, and themes (in terms of their relevance) -- some of which apply to the contest at hand and others which simply do not apply at all (hence the confusion).

The average rating by Democrats was 5.0 (with ratings ranging from 3 to 7) while the average for Republicans was 6.2 (with ratings ranging from 3 to 9). In either case, it clearly was felt relevance was lacking, to a significant degree, in this advertisement.

The Relevance rating was relatively low when compared to other advertisements but was the highest rating of the three – Accuracy, Fairness, and Relevance – because taxes and tax policy certainly are a relevant component of any campaign for federal office.

RELEVANCE RATING. While the subject matter, in general, is quite relevant, the approach deployed and the intentional misuse of economic and financial data serve to seriously undermine the integrity of the advertisement and render it far less relevant than it could have been.

The TIPA’s structure for calculating an overall rating is based on the following distribution:

Accuracy Rating: 45% of the Overall Score.

Fairness Rating: 35% of the Overall Score.

Relevance Rating: 20% of the Overall Score.

“Newsreel” receives an Overall Rating of 4.8. With a rating this low, the Coors campaign should reconsider this advertisement and, for purposes of integrity, reflect on the possibility of ending its run immediately.

(C) Copyright 2004 by the Democracy & Media Education Foundation. All rights reserved. Reproduction, duplication, transmission, or conveyance of this document – in whole or in part – without the express written consent of the DMEF is strictly prohibited. Bona fide print and electronic Press organizations, however, may quote this Report as long as proper attribution is given (i.e., “The Truth In Political Advertising Project”) and the quotation or reference accurately reflects the contents and conclusions of this Report. For questions, please call Zachary Adler at (303) 449-5043 or send an e-mail to Zachary@TIPAP.org. Thank you.