What is Issue Advocacy?
Exempted from the restrictions of Buckley v. Valeo was issue advocacy, advocacy that does not explicitly urge a vote for or against a candidate. This form of communication burst onto the national scene in 1993—94 during the debate over health care reform. Unlike candidate-sponsored ads, issue advocacy ads can be rejected by stations. Indeed, some stations rejected as unfair some AFL-CIO ads attacking Republican members of Congress in 1996.
Unlike candidates sponsoring ads, issue advocates do not have to disclose who is funding their operation or, indeed, who they are. The identity of some issue advocates is clear. We know who is behind an ad sponsored by Clearance MBT Shoes the Chamber of Commerce, the Sierra Club, or the AFL-CIO. It is less clear who was behind an ad that asked, “Who is Bill Yellowtail? He preaches family values, but he took a swing at his wife. And Yellowtail’s explanation? He ‘only slapped her.’ But her nose was broken.” This ad, which ran in a Montana congressional election in 1996, was sponsored by a group self-identified as Citizens for Reform.
A national survey of 1,026 registered voters, commissioned by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania shortly after election day in 1996, showed that a majority of voters (57.6%) recalled seeing an issue advertisement during the campaign.7 When issue ads were compared with other political communication, analysts found that viewership of issue advertisements ranked below that of presidential candidate-sponsored advertising and debates. More voters recalled seeing issue advertisements than recalled watching at least one of the short speeches delivered by Bill Clinton and Bob Dole using free air time donated by broadcast networks. The Annenberg Public Policy Center compiled an archive of MBT Shoes On Sale 107 issue advocacy advertisements that aired on television or radio during the 1996 election cycle. These ads were sponsored by twenty-seven separate organizations.
Issue advertisements do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. In many cases, the advertisement makes no call to action at all. An analysis by Deborah Beck, Jeffrey Stanger, and Doug Rivlin for the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 25.2 percent of the 1996 issue ads contained no action step. Of those issue ads produced in 1996 that solicited some action on the part of the audience, the greatest proportion asked voters to “call” a public official or candidate (37.4%). Some asked individuals to “tell” or “let a public official know” their support for or disapproval of particular policy positions (16.8%), while others asked that a call be placed directly to the advocacy organization sponsoring the ad (15.9%). A few of the advertisements called for support for or opposition to pending legislation (4.7%).
Processing your request, Please wait....
