Existing methods of disciplining and controlling candidates are ineffective.

Many political parties- even those in operating in the US- claim that regulation of the content of political campaigns is unnecessary. Parties assert that they supervise and monitor the content of their candidates’ statements. Self-regulation is claimed to be in parties’ own interests. However, ensuring that individual candidates maintain good standards of conduct and are disciplined for infractions goes only half way to ensuring that campaigning remains honest and equitable. Articles written and speeches made by candidates can easily be surveiled and monitored for misleading or litigious content. However, the most damning and intractable forms of negative campaigning often occur indirectly, without being explicitly associated with a particular political figure. Due to the frequency with which candidates’ activists and survey staff make contact with voters, there is the danger that they could be used to propagate negative messages via word of mouth campaigns. Tactics of this type were successfully employed by the radical socialist George Galloway to oust a Labour incumbent in the UK constituency of Bethnal Green and Bough. Allegations later emerged that Galloway’s door-step campaigners had made ad hominem and racist comments against his opponent. It is unacceptable that a candidate should be able to maintain a “clean” image by using his electoral staff to make negative attacks by proxy. Independent lobbying and campaigning groups that claim no party affiliation make important contributions to debate and policy making throughout the liberal world. However, despite their “independent” status, many of these organisations are guided by issues and ideological and philosophical principles that are closely linked to party politics. Particular think-tanks or single issue groups may be ideologically aligned to certain parties, even if they are not part of that party’s internal structure. The pro-life lobby in the US, for example, is politically aligned with the republican party, due to a shared support base among American Christians. Similarly, although the British think-tank ResPublica describes itself as non-party-political, it propagates social research based on identifiably right wing ideas, and is guided by an advisory board containing four Conservative party MPs. Under these circumstances, it is unrealistic to assume that pronouncements made by these organisations are free from the influence of those directly involved in political campaigns. In America, where independent “527”[i] groups are banned from contacting and coordinating with political parties, it is not unusual for such organisations to fund ad hominem attacks against a candidate perceived as being unsympathetic to a particular cause. Indeed, this is exactly why a broad interpretation of this motion is necessary. Organisations such as Swift Boat Veterans for truth are able to mount attack campaigns that directly benefit a particular participant in an election, while not being bound by the restrictions on conduct, spending or donor relationships that candidates themselves must abide by. Finally, limiting negative campaigning in the press will address the incentives on politicians to pursue campaign strategies oriented solely around garnering publicity. One of the first examples of negative campaigning, a 1964 television advert produced by Harry Truman, which implied that presidential candidate Barry Goldwater would initiate a nuclear war, proved so controversial that it was replayed in news broadcasts, effectively granting additional, free campaign coverage. The press is already confronted with too many engineered leaks and scandals. As noted above, these obscure more cogent analysis by neutral experts and commentators. [i] Section 527, United Stated Internal Revenue Code.