Dissatisfaction with paid campaign advertisements in recent elections has generated heartfelt pleas for fundamental change in the ways elections are conducted. Following the example of Australia and until recently West Germany, some have called for an outright ban on television campaign ads in the United States. Others more worried about the effect on last-minute deciders have suggested the application of the French model, where ads are banned during the closing weeks of the campaign (Schoenbach, 1987: Penniman and Ranney, undated).

These calls undoubtably reflect the deep frustration felt by viewers over the poor educational quality of advertisements in the United States. But it is far too simple to blame ads for these deficiencies. The problem of political commercials is as much a function of campaign structure and voter reactions as candidate behavior. Structural and attitudinal changes in the nature of campaigns have loosened the forces which used to restrain elite strategies. The rise of a mass-based campaign system at a time when candidates have powerful means of influencing viewers creates big incentives for media campaigns. Voters are bombarded with spot ads precisely because of the short-term possibilities evident in recent races (West, 1991a; 1991b).

Since the problem of advertisements goes much deeper than ads themselves, it is unlikely that the elimination of television ads would solve the problems which plague American elections. After all, nonsubstantive appeals by candidates did not originate with television ads in 1952. Fluffy rhetoric has a long tradition in American politics (Jamieson and Campbell, 1988).