Legally, all issue advertisements are alike in the sense that they are categorized as non-election activity. However, issue advertisers put them to very different uses. Legislative issue ads seek to mobilize constituents or policy makers in support of or in opposition to pending legislation or regulatory policy. General policy issue ads are more broadly gauged to enhance the visibility of an organization or its issue positions, but are not tied directly to a pending legislative or regulatory issue. Finally, candidate-centered issue ads couch their arguments in terms of candidates for office that either support or oppose the advocacy organization's or party's policy stance.
Critics argue that candidate-centered issue ads are attempts to circumvent election law.
Supporters maintain that it is well within the First Amendment rights of organizations to communicate with citizens about candidates and their positions on the issues. Ads shifted from legislative to candidate-centered after September 1. The named official was not always a candidate for office, for example, President Clinton or a senator not up for reelection were refered to often. There was a marked shift in the type of issue ads aired in the general election. Clearly, candidate-centered became the dominant form of issue advocacy as Election Day approached.