Potshots, Shock and Slick AI vs. Slop: An Election Advertising Year Like No Other

With control of Congress hanging in the balance, the projected $11.6 billion being spent this midterm election year is the highest in history — more than even the 2024 presidential election. TV and digital platforms are getting flooded with nasty attacks, cringy shock tactics and, for the first time, AI-generated ads, often aired without disclosure.

More outrage erupted last week when the campaign of Republican candidate for Ohio governor Vivek Ramaswani released an ad in which the estranged mother of his opponent, Democrat Amy Acton, called her a liar over an accusation about criminal rape charges filed against Acton’s stepfather when she was a child. The ad quickly drew a cascade of competing reactions across the political spectrum.

To break it all down, Maryland Today brought together a panel of University of Maryland experts: Shawn Parry-Giles, professor of communication and director of the Rosenker Center for Political Communication and Civic Leadership; Daniel Trielli, assistant professor of media and democracy in the Philip Merrill College of Journalism; and Candace Turitto, senior lecturer of government and politics, who studies voting behavior and political psychology and advertising. They discussed on-air vulgarities, disinformation and the growing influence of billionaires.

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Turitto: Ads have always used character attacks, but this year they seem to be crossing the bounds of societal decency. During the Illinois primaries, the lieutenant governor running for Senate ran an ad saying “F Trump.” In a Michigan ad, an incumbent House member said that all politicians are “full of s---.” For the last several years we’ve seen the president speaking that way, so it’s interesting to see Democrats taking that route, especially among female candidates.

Parry-Giles: Speaking of Trump, as his poll numbers go lower, Republicans are distancing themselves in ads. But they also don’t want to offend him, so they still appear with him in public.

Turitto: Trump still wants voters to vote as if he is on the ballot, but all of his Republican colleagues are, like, “No, please don't do that!”

Parry-Giles: I also think this election is going to be a referendum on wealth and power versus working people, and you see that playing out in ads in places like Maine, where (Democratic U.S. Senate candidate and former logger Troy) Jackson runs “at-work” ads appealing to most Americans, while (incumbent Susan) Collins points out that she brings in $400 million to the state and has delivered for 30 years. In Nebraska, Independent candidate Dan Osborn, who is a heating and air mechanic, is similarly running ads depicting him in everyday life, suggesting that (incumbent Republican Pete) Ricketts, who’s a millionaire, is out of touch.

Trielli: This might be the first year of AI in elections, but it's not the first with misleading content. What AI allows us to do, though, is expand the volume and speed in which disinformation is produced and shared. In five minutes, I can create a website pretending it’s a local newspaper in Pennsylvania and start churning out fake news stories about a candidate. That’s concerning.

I'm less concerned, frankly, about content that is obviously AI used in the great tradition of political cartoons and commentaries. Like, did Kamala Harris really speak at a Soviet convention where everyone was wearing red uniforms? No, and I don’t think people will believe that to the extent it would impact an election.

Turitto: That’s a good point. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) recently posted on X a video of herself superimposed as Kendrick Lamar at the Super Bowl. It's a hilarious parody and an obvious distraction. But even silly distractions gain attention that candidates use to move forward.

Trielli: Beyond the speed of AI generation compared to 2016 and 2020, they’re also produced with gritty realism. The age of easily distinguishable AI content with glossy sheen, human hands with six fingers and sloppy text is over. So we need a public willing to look beyond the content and focus on context to determine if it’s accurate.

Parry-Giles: I think that’s starting to happen, and I think many AI tactics will fail with voters who now assume that everything they see about politics is a lie. Regarding non-disclosure, I do think it’s problematic, but I doubt disclosures would change much. American people just aren’t very attentive to this. They're trying to pay their bills.

Trielli: Beyond ads themselves, campaigns are increasingly using AI to target specific voters with certain misleading ads that could sway a great wave of the population.

Turitto: Yes, but while our natural assumption is that the bad guys are using this for bad things, AI can also be democratizing because it’s affordable to produce and expands access. Instead of paying $20,000 for a TV spot, I can make a digital ad for a lot less.

Trielli: Could it be related to more billionaires being involved? Specific races that are unexpectedly competitive?

Parry-Giles: I think that’s right. If the House flips, billionaires will face a tougher future over policies for the rich, including AI and data centers. From an ad spend perspective, there are no guardrails — thank you Citizens United, 2010. It reflects growing income inequality, and also where the money comes from. No longer are we talking about raising money from $5 donations like Bernie Sanders.

Turitto: I think that’s the goal of the ad. Voters say that they don't like negative political ads, but they're shown to work. This one is particularly lowbrow, irrelevant and speaks to a painful chapter of Acton’s life. But Ramaswamy, who’s down 4-8 points, might think that all publicity is good publicity. He knows there will be some backlash, but does he lose less than Acton? He thinks the answer is yes.

Parry-Giles: I have a different take. I think this ad has echoes of Jeffrey Epstein, because here we go again with people not believing women and girls who say that they have been sexually assaulted. Pedophilia tends to be one of those dog-whistle issues that concern many on the right, and it’s also playing out in Kansas with (Democratic U.S. Senate candidate and Methodist pastor) Adam Hamilton, who’s accused of not providing protection for kids in his church camps. Ramaswamy is essentially saying that he doesn’t believe Acton, and I don't see how it benefits him at all.

Trielli: Court records show Acton’s experience was true, so it seems that Ramaswamy’s campaign didn’t care that ad was a lie. To me, the question becomes, is the backlash because people know it was false, or is it because it’s unpleasant to hear this woman say bad things about her daughter?

The answer is complicated because some people value facts more, and some people value identity and feels more. That’s fine because it’s part of being a human, but it highlights how difficult it is to be a purveyor of truth, because not everyone is necessarily interested in it.